The Third Way, however, is an argument based on the contingency of the Universe. Everything around us is contingent, or dependant upon something else for existence. A reason for the existence of anything is a combination of all the causes of it. Aquinas states that, since everything we know in the Universe are contingent upon something else, the Universe must itself be contingent upon other prior activities. The important point about God is that he is non-contingent, so he doesn’t depend upon anything else for his own existence.
Aquinas claims that nothing can go back to infinity and must have had a first cause or motion, but then this leaves us with the question of where God came from. Aquinas argued that there must have been a very first cause and that this was God. God is a necessary being and if he didn't exist first then there would always have been nothing.
- The Cosmological Argument cannot withstand Hume’s objections. Discuss. (17 marks)
The cosmological argument is an a posteriori argument; this makes it strong because it means it is based on experience and observation of the world around us. However many people have rejected this theory due to its many flaws.
David Hume, in his book-Dialogues, asked why we must conclude that the universe had to have a beginning. Even if the universe had a beginning, it does not mean that anything caused it to begin. He believed that the fact this argument was a posteriori, was a weakness as well as strength. Just because everything in the universe had a cause, it doesn't mean that the universe itself did, perhaps it didn't have a cause it just is? The universe could in fact be non-contingent. Russell supported Hume's view. Russell said that the universe does not have to have a beginning; it could have always been there.
Another idea Hume puts forward is, if God is the cause of the universe then what is the cause of God? If God is of his own cause then why can't the universe itself be of its own cause? Modern science already suggests that some things could be self-causing, and so the universe could be too and therefore, there isn’t need for 'an uncaused causer' suggested by Aquinas.
The cosmological argument is supposed to be based on experience and observation. However many parts of this argument are just speculated and not proven. The theory starts using experience, but then begins to reach conclusions about things outside experience, which are impossible so this weakens the argument.
However taking these criticisms into consideration there are also reasons as to why the cosmological argument is a strong argument. It is also universal, it can appeal to everybody because it is based on the world - something which we all experience. This helps to give an explanation as to why anything exists and why there are certain 'laws' or type of order.
When it comes down to it, it does all come down to personal interpretation, because after all, the questions to the universe' origins will never be answered, and we can only speculate and form opinions on things we know and experience in the world. However many have come to the conclusion that it is a strong argument in the sense that most of it is a posteriori (based on observation) and seems to be logical in that it states that the universe must have the same natural laws in which we live. In conclusion I think that the cosmological argument can’t really withstand the objections put forward by Hume.
