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

What are the key ideas of the cosmological argument?

Extracts from this document...


Cosmological Argument A. What are the key ideas of the cosmological argument? The Cosmological Argument is an argument that attempts to conclude the existence of god, through reference to the existence of the universe. It's main principle, first suggested by Plato, then developed by Thomas Aquinas, is that there must be an uncaused causer or an unmoved mover. Its Aposteriori nature, with a conclusion coming after experience, provides evidence to support this argument, rejecting infinite regress. The principle of sufficient reason is linked to this and Aquinas' theory of contingency underlines the main principle for the existence of god. Thomas Aquinas developed upon the theory of causation, first suggested by Plato. It states that everything that has been moved has in itself been moved by something else. This means that everything must have a cause and therefore there is s chain of causes. This principle is concluded by looking at events and tracing them back and says there must be a first cause, an unmoved mover to start this all off. Aquinas' religious background most probably helped in his decision that this is god. Aquinas' theory of contingency explains why there is and must be a first cause, god. He says that because of the causation theory, everything in the world is contingent and conditional and co-dependant on something else. ...read more.


The second point within this argument that is strong is Leibniz and Aquinas' theory that everything has a cause, therefore the universe cannot 'just exist', it must have a cause or it would not exist. However it does exist and so the Cosmological Argument states a starting point for the universe. This is god and the theory of sufficient reason answers our questions to how and why god exists. Thirdly gods omnipotent nature is important is this argument. This means that he doe not need a cause, because there is nothing greater than him and so no power to give a cause to him. He is the final cause because nothing else in the world is omnipotent and this is strength for the Cosmological Argument because it states god does not need a cause. The Cosmological Argument fit in with what religion tells us, that god is omnipotent. Aquinas and Craig's rejection of infinite regress states that we can add to the present therefore there is a future. This would not be if infinity was true and the world would not move, with time staying still. Therefore the rejection of infinite regress fits in with common sense and therefore is strong to this argument. The last strength of this argument is the universe itself existing, provides evidence that the theory is strong. ...read more.


Another main weakness that is apparent is Bertrand Russell's suggestion that why does the universe need a cause? Why can't we just accept that "it just is"? Hume states "The world may be the cause of itself, and maybe part of the way things are and the way the universe exists". However the Cosmological Argument theory of causation suggests that this would not happen and so the strength here wins. Aquinas and Craig reject infinity in their theory of the universe. However they then contradict themselves by saying that god is infinite. Again this breaks a rule they set for the Cosmological Argument, so why can't other things break the rules? Leibniz however accounts for this loophole. He says that god is outside our cosmos so has different rules. Therefore God being infinite and the world potentially infinite is not breaking the rules, just following different rules. The main problem with this argument is that with each point, there are weaknesses and strengths. You can then end up accounting for this by explaining a certain theory and why it is apparent, evident with Leibniz's explanation above. With the Cosmological Argument you can keep going back and forth arguing the strengths and weaknesses. Therefore the Strengths outweigh the weaknesses, but the weaknesses also sometimes outweigh the strengths. It is an ongoing argument with no firm conclusion one can come to. ...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. Describe the main strengths and weaknesses of the cosmological argument for the existence of ...

    itself (God).23 This argument has a premise like the infinity premises of the first two ways, premise eight. It also contains a serious logical error, which makes premise three false. Aquinas is arguing from "For everything there is a time when it does not exist" (which is what would be true if everything were contingent)

  2. Examine the main strengths and weakness of the Cosmological argument for the existence of ...

    is logical to accept the necessity of a first cause, it is illogical to then conclude that this cause be God. Being a priori, the argument that this first being is God cannot be backed up by hard evidence, and instead depends on reasoning that cannot be supported definitely.

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

    However today has arrived, so the past cannot be infinite. He went on to argue that time began when the universe began, and events are caused, therefore the beginning of the universe was an event. He concluded that there must have been a first cause, and that the first cause was God.

  2. St Thomas Aquinas and the Cosmological Argument

    Necessity and Contingency * There is no reason to assume that there need to have been a time when there was once nothing. There could be overlapping chains of contingent beings, so that there was never a period. There is no logical impossibility in this, there is no contradiction intrinsic to the concept of an endless chain of contingent beings.

  1. The Cosmological Argument

    If we accept the idea that everything depends on something else for its existence; then by continually regress back we will surely arrive at the first cause behind all things, which exist today - What if the history of the world, each successive event formed a circle or a figure of eight?

  2. 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.

  1. Proof and Probability in Arguing for God's Existence.

    Either God exists or 7+5=14 (2) It is false that 7+5=14 (3) Therefore God exists This is a valid deductive argument in that the conclusion follows from the premises. If the premises are true, the conclusion is certainly true. But it is not a 'good' deductive argument.

  2. Outline the key ideas of the design argument.

    For example, every year groups of grey whales migrate from their sub-arctic feeding grounds off the Alaskan coast to their Mexican breeding grounds. This is a journey of 20, 000 kilometres which takes up to three months. These behaviour patterns rarely change, and their end result is beneficial to the whales, so there is purpose in them.

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