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

Explain the main properties of the cosmological argument.

Extracts from this document...


A Explain the main properties of the cosmological argument. The cosmological argument began with Plato and ever since been defended and attacked by many great philosophers. One of the supporters was Leibniz. The cosmological argument is basically an argument about causation. Its major supporter was Thomas Aquinas though Gotfried Leibniz also put forward a simplified version of Aquinas's cosmological argument. The major critics of the argument have included David Hume and Bertrand Russell who question the basic principle that the argument works from. While the arguments of Aquinas assume that the universe cannot be temporally infinite, there is a version of the cosmological argument (supported by Leibniz (1646-1714) among others) that allows that the universe is temporally infinite. Leibniz regards the cosmological argument as a strong argument because there has to be an explanation for life. In 1710 Leibniz furthered Aquinas' third "way" (self existence) into what he called the "Principle of Sufficient Reason". ...read more.


Why do we need an explanation anyway? Hume asks why, if everything has a cause, must one thing not. As does Bertrand Russell. Russell believes that the universe is 'just a brute fact', and it does not matter how, we are just here!' The universe is not an issue. Perhaps the most important fault in the cosmological argument is what would appear to be a contradiction in the idea of everything having a cause for its existence, while at the same time holding that at the end of the chain there is a first-mover that is itself unmoved. Is there any reason to believe this idea? Why should everything except God have a cause? If you say that God does not need a cause for existence, that God is a necessarily existing thing, then cannot this idea be used in favour of anything that exists not having a cause? If however you say that everything does have a prior cause, then surely this shouldn't have exceptions. ...read more.


Also, it is perfectly logical to assert that objects do not bring themselves into existence and must, therefore, have causes. Like the teleological argument, the cosmological argument suffers from our uncertainty of whether or not the past, like the future, is infinite. If the past stretches back infinitely, then there never was a Prime Cause. If there have been an infinite number of causes in the past then logically there cannot have been a first cause. One of the weaknesses of the argument is that if all things need a cause to exist, then God Himself must also, by definition, need a cause to exist. But this only pushes causation back and implies that there must be an infinite number of causes, which cannot be. This is paradoxical. The cosmological argument does however assist with the question of existence and many philosophers observe the theory as a strong one. Therefore, the cosmological argument, although able to be understood easily and useful in some cases, is not sustainable argument and cannot be regarded as a logical explanation for the existence of God. Isobel Manley ...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. Examine the main strengths and weakness of the Cosmological argument for the existence of ...

    While Leibniz saw the arguments strength to explain sufficiently the existence of the universe, other philosophers do not. Over this, Russell and Copleston famously debated. Russell argued that one can never know when an explanation is adequate. David Hume questioned why we need to seek a complete explanation when partial explanations can be quite sufficient.

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

    The hierarchy of necessary existence itself would need an explanation for its existence. Here, Aquinas appeals to the *principle of sufficient reason*, which states that everything that happens has to have a sufficient explanation for occurrences.17 Since the hierarchy of necessary existences would therefore need to be explained, because of

  1. St Thomas Aquinas and the Cosmological Argument

    Copleston's argument comes in four steps: 1. There are some things which need not exist - they are contingent, and look beyond themselves for the reasons for their existence. That is, objects which might not exist had a certain event not happened. This means that the existence of some things can be explained by referring to something beyond themselves.

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

    The Muslim scholars, al-Kindi and al-Ghazali, propounded the Kalam Argument, however William Lane Craig and Ed Miller have since developed the argument. They both use the idea of actual infinite, as opposed to potential infinite. A potential infinite can be defined as existing if it is always possible to add one more to a series of things or events, e.g.

  1. Outline the Cosmological Argument-

    The third way argues contingency, the world is full of contingent items, things that come and go out of existence, such as humans. If all beings are contingent then at one time nothing existed. Therefore not all things can be contingent, something must have begun the cycle a necessary being must exist, and this being is God.

  2. Synoptic Study, Satre, Engels and Marx

    soul destroying work the proletarians are forced to do under a capitalist system. Human nature shows man to be a species being, which must cooperate in order to produce out means to live. Through our labor we not only connect with nature but also develop the relations with each other.

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

    time when everything would pass out of existence, but Aquinas utilising his reductio ad absurdum, claims that if the previous statement were true, then there we would be nothing but there is, meaning that that is false. This first part of his argument concludes that everything cannot be contingent and there needs to be necessary being.

  2. The Cosmological Argument

    He believed that motion was the reduction of something from having the potential to move or change to actually moving or changing. For this to happen, it has to be put into motion by another, and the same for the one before.

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