Assess how far Aquinas’ cosmological argument shows that it is possible to believe in God
Aquinas tries to prove the existence of God using logic that is within the understanding and experiences of the human being. This logical way of looking at arguments that attempt justify the existence of God in terms of the A postreiori knowledge that is visible to all of us, such as the fact that everything has a cause, makes the existence of God seem necessary and almost obvious.
The argument that the universe is infinite is also a good one, as everything within the universe is finite and therefore it makes sense that the universe should be finite. The idea of something being infinite is also beyond our understanding, so it is easier to assume that the universe is like everything else and has a beginning and an end.
Aquinas’ 3 ways to prove God’s existence are clear and convincing. Everything in the universe moves as a result of something moving it, since this cannot go on to infinity, there must have been an unmoved mover to start the cycle. Similarly, nothing is the cause of itself therefore there must have been an original cause which was uncaused itself. The existence of the universe is a strong argument in itself as nothing can come from nothing; therefore there must be something that brought it all into existence. God’s existence is necessary.
However, Aquinas sets out to prove the existence of the Christian God and he shapes his argument accordingly, making many assumptions. For example, he assumes that people already believe that there is a God, and that the universe isn’t just a result of a series of coincidences. He also makes a huge leap from the observation that everything in the universe has a cause and a mover, to the universe has a cause and a mover. Also, the universe is not necessarily finite, since matter cannot be created or destroyed it is possible that the universe has always been there and there is an infinite regression of causes. Aquinas also contradicts himself by saying that nothing is infinite yet expecting us to accept the fact that God is an infinite being.
Although Aquinas arguments support the view that God exists, there is no empirical evidence to prove his existence. Therefore the belief that God exists must be primarily based on faith and can only be reinforced by the cosmological argument.
Explain the key criticisms of the cosmological argument
David Hume said that we have no experience of the universes being made and so we cannot speak meaningfully about the creation of the universe. To move from ‘everything we observe has a cause’ to, ‘the universe has a cause’ is too big a leap for logic and that it is human nature to make connections between cause and effect, even if we have no experience or evidence to support the connection. He says that there is no evidence to suggest that the universe had a cause and that even if there was a cause, there is no proof that the cause of the universe was the god of classical theism. It could always have existed and consist of infinite causes, it doesn’t necessarily have to have a beginning.
The steady state theory also denies that there is a beginning of the universe and challenges Aquinas’ arguments regarding contingency and necessary existence. If the universe doesn’t have a beginning then there cannot be a first cause. The theory that energy cannot be created or destroyed means that it is simply redistributed, suggests that there was not a first cause or a beginning to the universe, but that the universe was infinite.
Bertrand Russell questioned the use of “everyday” language to describe matters of the universe and it’s existence as they are beyond the human experience and the use of language can be misleading .Russell also challenged the cosmological argument by saying that there is no evidence necessary existence and he also argued that the leap cannot be made from the concept that there are causes of things within the universe to the universe was caused. The universe could be a brute fact, for which there is no explanation – it is just there. Bertrand Russell also picks up on the fact that Aquinas contradicts himself by arguing against infinite regression and then argues that God is both unmoved and uncaused, and is an infinite being.
The cosmological argument is based on observations and experience, yet Kant argues that we cannot apply human experiences of the universe to things that are beyond our understanding. Anthony Kenny argues that Aquinas’ first way, the unmoved mover, goes against the fact that people and animals move themselves and that Newton’s law of motion ,which can be scientifically proved using empirical evidence, where movement is explained from the body’s own inertia from previous movement opposes the idea that there must be a first mover.
The big bang theory is now widely accepted, but cannot be used to either prove or disprove the cosmological argument. It is scientific evidence that the universe began, but was the cause of the big bang the God of classical theism?
The weaknesses of the cosmological argument outweigh its strengths. To what extent do you agree with this view?
The cosmological is based on logic and applies a posterior knowledge of the world around us to suggest God’s existence. To a person that believes in God, his argument is extremely convincing as it “proves” that God is a necessary being, the first mover and the first cause that was the starting point of the universe. This theory is supported by the argument that the finite nature of the universe requires God to exist and the fact that nothing can cause or move itself means there must have been a being outside the laws of space and time to bring things into existence. He says that the fact that things exist now proves this.
However, there is no evidence to suggest that this being is Aquinas’ Christian God, or that he is interested in the Universe and the things in it. Surely the fact that this God must be outside time and space means that he cannot continue to have an effect on the world, once it was brought into existence. This is a significant weakness, as people may able to accept the need for a being with a necessary existence, but to accept that this being is a God that takes an interest in the world and requires worship is a huge step from this, and Aquinas assumes that people already have faith in the Christian God.
Burtrand Russell says that we cannot apply what happens within the universe to the universe itself, as it is beyond our understanding and that to go from saying that everything in the universe has a Mother, to the universe has a Mother, is too big a jump. He suggests that the universe could be simply a brute fact, a result of a series of coincidences. This will always be a strong argument as there is no evidence to suggest that the universe had a cause as this is beyond our experience, and it would be naive to assume that the universe is like the things within it. On the other hand, most people would like to believe that the universe has a cause and it’s not just a coincidence that they exist, so they might be more inclined to accept the cosmological argument.
In conclusion, although the cosmological argument is convincing to someone who wants to believe in a being bigger than themselves or already believes in God, it is not strong enough to prove the existence of God to a non believer as there is always the brute fact argument to contradict it. However, the cosmological argument does solve many of the problems regarding the conflict between science and religion as the big bang theory could be used to support the “prime mover” and the “uncaused cause “argument, this makes the cosmological argument compatible with modern ideas about science and makes it accessible to people in the modern world.
.
