• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Explain the cosmological argument for existence of God

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Explain the cosmological argument for existence of God The cosmological argument is an a posterior argument which has a long history, going back to the great classical philosophers of Plato, Aristotle, Leibnitz and Kant. All of them believed that the universe was the result of a transcendent being called G-d. Although these philosophers may have had different ideas about G-d, they all agreed that the universe was not self explanatory and must have had a sole cause in order for it to come into existence. Although the cosmological argument had various forms, each version focused on a key fundamental question: Why the universe began, why it was created and who or what created it. The case for the Cosmological Argument is best and most famously put forward by St Thomas Aquinas in his book Summa Theologicae which contained the 'Five ways' The argument starts off with his rejection of the ontological argument, as he says "[...] an argument that says G-d's existence is self-evident we cannot use [...] as we can't see the self evidence." He argued that one first needs to argue about G-d from evidence we find in the world today. This is quite an Aristotelian concept; Aristotle was a philosopher who Aquinas studied in Cologne and translated his works. His first argument was the "Unmoved mover" argument. The argument is concerned with things which change. ...read more.

Middle

The universe has a beginning of its existence. The universe has a cause of its existence. If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is G-d, therefore G-d exists. What distinguishes the kalam cosmological argument from other forms of cosmological argument is that it rests on the idea that the universe has a beginning in time. Modal forms of the cosmological argument are consistent with the universe having an infinite past. According to the kalam cosmological argument, however, it is precisely because the universe is thought to have a beginning in time that its existence is thought to stand in need of explanation. In conclusion, all three arguments are interconnected to form the cosmological argument. The unmoved mover is concerned with the things themselves that change whilst the uncaused cause is focused on the things which cause them to change and the necessity and contingency argument explains the theory behind, all have the same consistency about the universe not being infinite, that it has a beginning which G-d caused, because G-d is the necessary being which causes all things contingent to exist in a chain of causes. To what extent is the cosmological argument convincing The philosopher Leibniz supports Aquinas and his argument that there must be a necessary reality or being "We assume that things in the world happen for a reason, why can't we assume this about the world as a whole?" ...read more.

Conclusion

The continuous questioning is part of human nature; we cannot accept that the universe may be a reality itself as it has not been proved. We therefore need to believe in some external intelligent creator. Aquinas' argument is the product of this human belief that we are the subject of design, in a series of causes and effects that can be traced to a definite cause which itself is uncaused. Aquinas is logical and his argument understandable, but it is in human logic and experience which it is trapped and ultimately flawed where it fails to look beyond human experience, something that we cannot ourselves image but rather to speculate over, as we will never know what there was before the universe. Hume's criticisms consider these possibilities, making sense logically and outlining limitations of human experience. "We are prepared to argue that because there are causes of things within the universe, there is a cause for the universe as a whole?" we do not know because there is no way of knowing. Furthermore, the advances made in recent years in science shows that an effect does not follow on from a cause from the advances in quantum physics, particles can come into existence with no explanation. Aquinas' logic is understandable, and the argument believable, but it is the expansion of human understanding and discovery that will eventually disprove logic as we encounter the unbelievable and so his argument will become less convincing over time. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Philosophy essays

  1. Outline the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God.

    This criticism was highlighted by an analogy proposed by Bertrand Russell, who remarked that just because every human has a mother doesn't mean that the human race as a whole has a mother.

  2. Describe the main strengths and weaknesses of the cosmological argument for the existence of ...

    no way of moving from this to showing that God is the most perfect possible being.33 Another form of the cosmological argument is the Kalam Cosmological argument which was first put forward by Islamic theologians and philosophers. Kalam means 'discourse' or 'argument'.34 Instead of arguing that the universe depends on

  1. St Thomas Aquinas and the Cosmological Argument

    However, if we accept our limitations, we can still function without abandoning our theories about cause and effect. * Hume believed that all knowledge comes from our experience of the worked. Something can only be called a cause if it is observed to be causing something.

  2. Cosmological argument

    where Scientific laws come from and why they are the way they are because science must assume a law to prove a law, they are brute there is no explanation for them unless we find a different kind of explanation for them.

  1. What are the key ideas of the Cosmological argument for the creation of God?

    The end statement is that the universe has a cause and that cause is god. b) Identify the main strengths of this argument. The strengths of the argument are that there are three ideas; they come in different forms so if one of them fails then the other two ideas might be able to fill in the gaps.

  2. The Cosmological Argument

    This is the teaching of atheist evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins who believe that our purpose in life is simply to spread our genes and successfully pass them onto the next generation.

  1. Examine the strengths and weaknesses of - The Thomist Cosmological Argument of the Existence ...

    Faith is needed for a belief in God, as his/her existence cannot be proved by reason alone. The Kalam Argument is another version of the Cosmological Argument because it also seeks to prove that God was the first cause of the universe.

  2. Discuss the concept of Natural Law with reference to the ideas of Aristotle and ...

    law to try them, as the laws of their own country (Nazi Germany) at the time permitted them to do evil. ?Natural Law leads to unjust decisions.? I agree with this statement, this is because natural law can be contradictory and is often applied inconsistently.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work