The final cosmological theory was called possibility and necessity. Aquinas described anything with a property as a ‘being’. He believed that all beings including the universe were contingent as they had a beginning and an end. They also relied on something else for their own existence; an example of this is man relying on reproduction to continue the human race. However if all beings were contingent then there would have been a time when nothing existed. In which case there must be a necessary being which is dependent on nothing buts itself to bring all else into existence, to have brought the contigent beings into existence in the first place. Aquinas firmly believed and argued that this necessary being was God.
All of the cosmological arguments conclude that God is the ultimate explanation for the beginning of the universe. Aquinas believes that they show that only God has the necessary characteristics to create it.
Aquinas rejected the idea that there could be an infinite chain of cause or movement rather then a necessary causeless being, God. He explained this in his first way because if the universe were finite then there would have never been a beginning and no first mover, which brought contingent beings into existence. He consequently deemed this as impossible. William Lain Craig also believed that the universe couldn’t be infinite because you cannot add to an infinite amount. This backs the cosmological theory. This is added to by Ed Miller whose theory is that if the universe is infinite it has an infinite number of series of days, the end of an infinite series of days would never be reached therefore we would never reach today. This makes infinity impossible. Finally the Kalam argument, also known as the beginning argument, agrees with Aquinas’ beliefs that infinity cannot exists, this believe proves that something must have started the world. All of these theories give evidence to Aquinas’ theory that God exists.
For what reasons have some thinkers rejected the cosmological argument? How far is it possible to regard the cosmological argument as a strong argument?
The cosmological theories are an inductive set of arguments. They answer key unexplained questions about the origins of the universe and are flexible with more then on conclusion and ways to reach this conclusion. Theses are just a few of the key strengths of the argument. It also uses evidence to prove it theory and reaches a conclusion that God is the only adequate and sensible explanation of the universe. The theory is clear and accepted by many, however there are also many who criticise it. Reasons for these criticisms could be the lack of interest of some people to find answers of the origins of the universe and the fact that many atheists believe they have found alternative explanations to the universe, which does not include God. Many people have also described Aquinas as having made a ‘leap of logic’ to conclude the existence of God and science has suggested alternative theories about the universe. All of these criticisms weaken the cosmological argument.
David Hume is one of the main thinkers who reject the cosmological argument. He questioned weather the universe needs a cause. Although he agreed with Aquinas that everything within the universe has a cause he did not conclude that the universe itself therefore must have a cause. This he described this as a leap of logic because there is no proof of the universe having a cause. Although it is probable that the universe was caused it is not certain, this is one of the main weaknesses of the cosmological argument. Hume used a famous example to back up his theory of cause:
‘Every man who exists has a mother, and it seems to me your argument is therefore saying the human race must have a mother, but obviously the human race hasn’t a mother’ This Hume believed show that the assumption that the universe has a cause because everything within it does is absurd. Hume’s arguments show that the cosmological theory cannot be called a strong argument.
Hume also believed that everything requires evidence. This meant that because we are unable to step out of the universe in order to explain and gather information for its cause, he saw searching for one pointless, especially when leaps of logics were used rather then proof. Finally Hume accepted the idea of a finite universe therefore accepts the idea of a necessary being, however he disagrees that this necessary being must be god. He again believes that Aquinas took a leap of logic because he never included God in the premises of his arguments but still concluded his existence.
Some philosophers however have retained the basis of the Cosmological argument. One of these was Copleston who first put forward his argument in a radio debate with Bertrand Russell in 1947. Copleston believed that there were contingent and non-contingent things in the universe. He believes that everything in the universe relies on something else making them contingent and can only be explained with reference to some cause or external reason. Therefore he claims that there must be cause or reason outside the universe for everything in the universe. If then, everything is contingent there must be a necessary being to bring it into existence. This theory is based on Aquinas’s second way and backs up the cosmological argument making it stronger. Russell however disagreed with Copleston, as he believes that the universe is without reason and its existence is a mere fact. He famously stated ‘I should say that the universe is just there, and that’s all’. Russell also agrees with Hume and believes that Aquinas made a leap of logic. He rejects his cosmological argument and he denies that the universe needs an explanation for its existence. However not all people share Russell’s lack of curiosity, therefore the cosmological argument offers a theory to those who disagree that the universe is simply a fact.
Modern science however can be used to strengthen and weaken Aquinas’ cosmological theory. It can be seen as supporting the argument due to the ‘big bang’ theory which agrees that there was a time when the universe did not exist making it finite. However some other scientists argue that the big bang wasn’t the beginning of the universe, instead it was another step in the series of expanding and contracting oscillating universe. Science has also observed particles which had appeared and disappeared without an apparent cause, proving that not everything has a cause as Aquinas stated in premise one of the uncaused causer. Supporters of Aquinas argue however that these particles do have a cause, it simple hasn’t been made clear yet.
To conclude many philosophers and great minds have rejected the cosmological argument, this questions the strengths that the argument has. However the argument can still be seen as strong due to it offering a straightforward and sensible conclusion to the origins of the universe.