Explain the features and origins of the Cosmological Argument
![Authors Avatar]()
by
erinruth99gmailcom (student)
Explain the features and origins of the Cosmological Argument (35)
The existence of God is one of the greatest unsolved questions of humanity. For centuries theologians and philosophers have formulated arguments, including the cosmological argument. This argument claims that all things in nature depend on something else for their existence (i.e. are contingent), and that the whole cosmos must therefore itself depend on a being which exists independently or necessarily. There must have been a first cause, which brought the universe into existence. This first cause must have necessary existence to cause the contingent universe. God has necessary existence, therefore God is the first cause of the contingent universe's existence.
The cosmological argument is posteriori, meaning it is derived by reasoning from observed facts. The argument is also synthetic, as it requires physical evidence, and it is inductive. An inductive argument is an argument that is intended by the arguer merely to establish or increase the probability of its conclusion. This is because it is often used primarily to justify the faith of those that are already theists, especially in the case of Aquinas. The Greek word ‘cosmos’ was coined by the philosopher Pythagoras to refer to the order of the universe. The actual cosmological argument for the existence of God was first put forward by Plato. For Plato God is timeless, spaceless and unchanging in contrast to this fleeting world. However, the most famous proponent of this argument is Aquinas. He wrote about it in Summa Theologica and three of his Five Ways deal with cosmology: The Unmoved Mover, The Uncaused Causer and Possibility and Necessity.
Starting with the unmoved mover, there are various types of motion (change): change of place, size, and state. It is the last one that Aquinas had particularly in mind. Here movement has the sense of moving from potentiality to actuality. For example, wood is potentially hot, and for a piece of wood to become hot it has to be changed by fire. Whatever is moved must be initially moved by another, which itself was once moved. If we trace back we must arrive at a first mover, moved by no other. Infinite regress is impossible, therefore there must ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Starting with the unmoved mover, there are various types of motion (change): change of place, size, and state. It is the last one that Aquinas had particularly in mind. Here movement has the sense of moving from potentiality to actuality. For example, wood is potentially hot, and for a piece of wood to become hot it has to be changed by fire. Whatever is moved must be initially moved by another, which itself was once moved. If we trace back we must arrive at a first mover, moved by no other. Infinite regress is impossible, therefore there must be a first mover (changer). This is what we understand to be God. Christian theology has always taught that God sustains the universe. In other words, if God ceased to exist then the universe would also cease. Therefore there must be an initiator of the change whose continued existence is depended upon, like a play depends on the actors.
Following on, the second form of the argument is the uncaused causer. This follows a similar line of argument but replaces motion with cause: Every effect has a cause; infinite regress is impossible; therefore there must be a first cause. Something cannot cause itself for this would mean it preceded itself and this is impossible. Hence the need for an uncaused causer, namely God. One of the differences between these two points is that in the first, attention is centred on the fact that things are acted upon, whereas in the second, the attention is on things as agents (doing the acting upon). The first cause sees God as a factual necessity, as the causal explanation to the universe. This means that God is seen as a being who is not dependent on any other for His existence.
Moreover, the third form of the argument involves God as the necessary being. For Aquinas, anything that had a property was referred to as a "being". The world consists of contingent items, that is, beings that are generated and perish. If all beings were contingent, then at one time nothing would have existed. This is because there would have been a time prior to the coming into existence of contingent beings. But if this is the case, then nothing would be able to come into existence as everything contingent has a prior cause. Thus all beings cannot be contingent. There must exist a necessary being which Aquinas refers to as God. Again, expressed formally: Some contingent beings exist. If any contingent beings exist then a necessary being must exist. Therefore a necessary being exists, namely God.
Finally, there are other forms of the cosmological argument asides from Aquinas. It is not restricted to Christian thinking. The Kalem is a version of the Cosmological Argument coming from the Islamic tradition; it rejects the idea of an infinite universe, since as time is always being added on – time cannot be infinite. Although the argument is fundamentally Islamic, and dates from the 9th Century CE, it was “discovered” in the western world by William L. Craig, who revised it slightly. To quote, “If the universe began to exist, and if the universe is caused, then the cause of the universe must be a personal being who freely chooses to create the world.”
Another key version of the Cosmological Argument is Leibnizt’s Principle of Sufficient Reason. Leibnitz proposed this argument in his book ‘Theodicy’, in it he says that nothing can’t turn itself into something (since by the very nature of nothing it has no ability to cause itself to change), and our very existence shows that nothing did turn into something, there must have been some external force which caused it to do so. The final key version of the Cosmological Argument is Richard Swinburne and his application of Oakham’s Razor. Richard Swinburne says that God is quite simply the easiest explanation for everything. This is the principle that if a single self-sufficient explanation for can be found, then there is no gain in exploring other more complex explanations; Swinburne expresses this himself in the following quote: “There could be no simpler explanation than one which postulates only one cause. Theism is simpler than polytheism.”
by
erinruth99gmailcom (student)
