• 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. Explain Aquinas cosmological argument for the existence of God. Humes criticisms ...

    The third way is Aquinas' belief of a necessary being. Nothing in our world is permanent - everything is contingent which means it exists but could equally well not exist. Considering this it means it is possible that there was a time when nothing existed but since we know it

  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

    impossibility, and from which the existence of all contingent beings is derived. This is thought to be G-d. Arguments Uncertainty of Cause * David Hume observes that while we may perceive two events that seem to occur in conjunction, there is no way for us to know the nature of their connection.

  2. Explain the Cosmological argument for the existence of God.

    then there would be no prime mover and therefore no secondary movers as there would be no initial force to cause all secondary movers to change, therefore there must be an unmoved prime mover as any other conclusion would be absurd and nothing would happen .

  1. Examine the strength of the cosmological argument for the existence of god

    It is also strengthened with the fact that there is something rather then nothing we have experience of the universe so we can see how complex it really is, so no one can deny that is nothing, there is actually something.

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

    Another opponent of the argument was Kant. He argued that only events, with which we have experience, have a cause. God is metaphysical, and therefore the argument is invalid as it is impossible for us to have knowledge of him/her and what he/she created.

  1. Assess whether the cosmological argument proves the existence of God.

    that every event has a cause, and goes to claim that nothing can be the cause of its self. Then he says conceptualise of an order of causes which goes back infinitely with no first cause, which he goes on to reduces to absurdity by claiming that

  2. Explain the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God, according to Aquinas

    Aquinas bases his cosmological argument on Aristotle?s causality and welds it to his belief in a Creator, the being that caused creation. The first of the ways of the cosmological argument is Motion or Progression, the idea that we all experience with our senses motion which has a previous cause for a prior unmoved mover.

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