i) Outline the key features of the cosmological argument ii) To what extent is it a weak argument

by daisydollll (student)

AS and A Level Religious Studies & Philosophy

Philosophy

i) The Key features of the cosmological argument

The cosmological argument is an argument adopted by Thomas Aquinas, William Craig, Leibniz and other scholars. It is an inductive argument that tries to prove the existence of God through experience and the evidence of the existence of the universe. Therefore the argument is said to be posteriori. Thomas Aquinas’ ideas are derived from Plato and Aristotle who both concluded that the existence of the universe was caused by an intelligent being/unmoved mover.

Aquinas was a theist who put up three ways to reach the conclusion of his premise. His first of many ways was centred on Aristotle’s conclusion of the ‘unmoved mover’. He argues that, the things in the world can change location, place and form. He uses the burning firewood to illustrate that, for a piece of wood to become hot, it has to be changed by fire. Furthermore, he states that, whatever that is moved or changed cannot be moved on its own but by another because there would be an infinite regress of movers which is impossible. If we trace the sequence of movements to the beginning, we must arrive at a first mover. He concludes that, that ‘unmoved mover’ must be God.

Secondly, he refers to the second way which is similar to the first way. He states that, every effect must have a cause because nothing can cause itself. If this was possible, then there will be an endless chain of effects (infinite regress).Referring to Aristotle, he argued that, if nothing caused the chain then there would be nothing, and there would be no chain at all. Everything in the universe that happens has a cause and such is dependent for something else for its existence. Therefore by power of reduction ad absurdum, there must be an ultimate cause, a being that began the chain of causes, an ‘uncaused causer’. Aquinas concludes that this uncaused causer is God.

This is a preview of the whole essay

In addition to that, Aquinas argues that the cause of the universe is a necessary being as opposed to a contingent one. The first of his third way is the idea of the contingent being. He argues that the universe consists of contingent beings which pass in and out of existence but there will come a time when nothing will be in existence. He used his notion of reduction ad absurdum to prove that if this were true there would be nothing because nothing can come from nothing which is false. There must be a necessary being that sustains other contingent beings. Furthermore, Aquinas states that, there must be an ultimate cause that exists outside time. He argues that God is that necessary being, because He cannot fail to exist. This would eliminate the problem of infinite regress.

I support of Aquinas’ argument, Leibniz argues that God must exist because of the ‘principle of sufficient reason’ which states that everything happened for a reason, has a cause for its existence and that history is an endless series of explanations. Therefore, he argues that God must exist in order to fulfil this principle. Leibniz also claims that the existence of all things must lie with a necessary being that has the reason for its own cause-it is elf contained. This is known as metaphysical necessity.

In conclusion, the cosmological argument describes God as the unmoved mover, uncaused causer and a necessary being .He argues that there is a necessary being that is responsible for the existence of the universe and every contingent being. It is concluded that, the external cause must be God, as God is eternal and therefore does not require a cause for his existence. The cosmological argument also argues that infinite regress is impossible as it would mean no ultimate cause, in which case the universe never existed.

ii) To what extent is it a weak argument?

The cosmological argument tries to prove God as the creator of the universe, and is an example of an a posteriori argument, meaning its conclusion is reached based on past experience. Aquinas’ cosmological argument argues that the creator/cause of the universe is an unmoved mover, an uncaused causer and a necessary being. Opposers of the argument include Hume, Russell and Kant whereas supporters include Leibniz and Swinburne. Overall, the cosmological argument is weak because the weaknesses are far more substantial than the strengths, and therefore outweigh them.

Firstly, a weakness of the cosmological argument is that it does not find a cause for the universe within the universe. This is known as the infinite regression of explanation, as against by Hume, who criticizes that God’s cause is unknown, that we could question causes infinitely (infinite regress), and we need to find a cause within the universe. This portrays the cosmological argument as a weak one.

Furthermore, Hume goes on to argue that we may never actually experience causation, which undermines Aquinas’ second way. Hume argues that our minds simply impose that idea of causation upon us a means of explaining what we experience, but events (such as snooker balls) may take place independently without case at all. Elizabeth Anscombe, a supporter of the cosmological argument, defends by claiming that although it is possible to imagine an event having a different cause to one you expected, it is impossible to imagine an event with no cause at all. However, this is a very weak defence and Hume’s point further portrays a weak cosmological argument.

Additionally, the cosmological argument may be wrong to assume that just because there is some property common to a group of individuals, that there is a common property to the whole group. This was put across by Hume as the fallacy of composition. Russell uses the analogy that ‘just because every human has a mother, it does not mean that the human race as a whole must have a mother’ must explain this criticism. Hume asserts that it is unreasonable to ask what caused the whole chain of events when we know each individual cause. This undermines Aquinas’ second way and would support the claim that it is a weak argument.

In conclusion, God may have all the properties to explain the universe, whereas science does not. Theism may also be the best explanation for scientific facts of the world but it doesn’t actually provide deductive a priori empirical truth only probability.