There is logic in his argument in the sense that it is true that something could not have sprung from nothing as that is illogical. Also asking the question “What was the cause of the cause of the cause etc” forever does not make sense so his logic in that there has to be a beginning and that beginning is God, is a reason which ‘proves’ the existence of God. The argument also makes a lot of sense and there is reason to believe in his argument because there is nothing in the argument that does not make sense.
St Thomas Aquinas believes that his argument contains proof that God exists, but in order to prove that a theory is correct then there has to be enough evidence. However St Thomas Aquinas’ argument is based on purely logic and sense and the theme of the argument is based on how everything (the universe, time and space) was created.
The argument however is ambiguous as you can agree with one part of the argument, but not the other. You could agree that there is a chain of causes, but you do not have to agree with the fact that these causes started with a ‘first cause’ that was uncaused by anything so you do not have to agree with God starting the chain of causes. Some people actually think that it also makes sense to believe that the chain reaction of causes stretch endlessly backwards and there was no beginning at all. This idea supports a belief that there is no God.
So overall by looking at the cosmological argument we can come away with a reason which supports a belief in God, but also a reason which does not support a belief in God and it is up to us whether we agree with the argument or disagree with the argument.
Personally I believe that this argument supports a belief in God (the creator of the universe) because the idea that there was no beginning and the chain reaction of causes go on forever makes no sense to me at all, but the idea that there must have been a first cause makes sense.
Next I will consider the teleological argument (the argument of design and purpose). The teleological argument starts by imagining you are walking across a field and you discover a watch. However this watch is very precise and complex and this shows evidence that it was designed very carefully for a purpose (which is to tell the time) and telling the time involves precision. Therefore there must have been a maker. The watch symbolises the universe as the universe is very complex and precise. For example if the big bang was a little less violent then the expansion would have been slower and everything would have all come back in to the same spot causing a big ‘crunch’ and if it was a little more violent everything would spread out so far that the solar systems could not have formed. Other examples of precision and complexity are the human body, the elements, natural laws, the sun and moon etc (the list goes on). As the universe shows so much complexity and precision it must have had a designer and this designer is God according to William Paley.
This argument does make sense and is correct in the sense that as a fact we know that the universe and our world are very complicated and precise. His argument does show a belief in God as surely as the world we live in is so complex it must have been made by a designer. The universe contains order which also gives a reason to believe that there must have been a God (who is beyond space and time) who designed everything. The argument is similar to St Thomas Aquinas’, but the logic is to do with how complex the world is where as his was to do with how the universe formed. When placing both arguments together we can produce a solid argument to support a belief in God, however Paley’s argument is also ambiguous like the cosmological argument.
You could agree with the fact that the universe does contain, order, complexity and precision, but you do not have to agree that the universe was designed by a designing mind (or God). You could instead say that the universe was created by a product of chance and that nature randomly ‘plays’ with the atoms through many different combinations until the right combination occurs. Therefore this argument produces a reason not to believe in God which is that the universe was created by chance and not a God.
However my personal view on this is that this idea is illogical because if nature did things by chance, then the chance of everything turning out to be made just in the right way is very small and confuses me.
So I think that Paley’s arguments as well as Aquinas’ argument both show stronger support in a belief of a God then a belief that there is not God. I believe that both arguments prove that God exist because they are logical and sensible arguments and that only people who already believe that God does not exist would use the two contradictory arguments which are that the chain reactions of causes stretch endlessly backwards and that the universe was created by a product of chance, to support their belief in there being no God without considering the logic behind them.
Ram Aswani
L4a
