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

Explain The Cosmological Argument

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Explain The Cosmological Argument From Aquinas and Copleston The Cosmological Argument has been put forward by two different men; St. Thomas Aquinas and Frederick Copleston. The Cosmological Argument is both inductive and a posteriori. This means that the end conclusion relies on probability and chance, rather than any proof from the premises, and the argument is based on observations and experience from noticing change, particularly in nature. The main layout of the Cosmological Argument is that everything in the universe has a cause for its existence. The universe exists, therefore the universe must have a cause for it coming into being, this cause being God. Both Aquinas and Leibniz use Ockham's Razor, 'do not multiply entities unnecessarily', to state that God is the most likely probable creator of the universe, as it is the simplest explanation. ...read more.

Middle

The object causing this 'push' in movement is also given motion by another object. According to Aquinas, infinite regress is logically impossible, and because of this there must be something at the beginning which caused this motion, without being affected itself. This is God. Aquinas says that God must be an uncaused causer, because if God were the efficient cause, and physically giving the object a 'push', rather than being The Final Cause, the 'push' would affect God, meaning it would be contingent rather than necessary. To help explain this argument of motion, Aquinas uses the idea of dominoes. One force knocking domino causes the whole line of them to fall. For the objects to go from Potentiality to Actuality there needs to be something in the beginning which has already possessed Actuality. ...read more.

Conclusion

This means it would be impossible for the first thing to ever come into existence. Something necessary (needs to exist, and doesn't rely on anything to exist) must have existed in the beginning to bring the contingent objects into existence. This necessary being is God. The other man to put forward a different version of the Cosmological Argument was Frederick Copleston. In 1948, Copleston and Russell had a live debate on the radio concerning the universe and the Cosmological Argument. Copleston stated his argument in three different stages: everything within universe has contingency. Because of this, the universe as a whole has got to be contingent. This premise is known as the Fallacy of Composition; jumping from everything within the universe being contingent to the universe itself being contingent. For the contingency of the universe and everything within it to have come into it, a necessary being must have created it. This being is God. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Existence of God 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 GCSE Existence of God essays

  1. Explain the Ontological argument.

    What are the problems with the design argument? The design argument has received a lot of criticism from philosophers over the years, which has devalued its philosophical worth. Hume is a major opponent of the design argument has argued that humans do not have the sufficient knowledge and experience of creation to conclude there was only one designer.

  2. What does St. Thomas Aquinas consider to be the nature and methodology of the ...

    Today many subjects are loosely titled a science. Science, in the main, in today's society would be the methodical and systematic research into a visible and tangible object of nature. (Redford, 2000 P, 43.) A scientist has a base or object to begin to explore, equate and conclude to.

  1. The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Cosmological Argument

    If God exists but does not have a cause of his existence then if God is thought to have a cause for existence that this is false, in which case the cosmological argument is unsound. If God is thought to have a cuase than this is false, i.e.

  2. A Big Bang Cosmological Argument for God's Nonexistence

    big bang, an interpretation that is not only able to stand up to the theistic interpretation but is in fact better justified than the theistic interpretation. But my argument is intended to establish even more than this. I have elsewhere made the case that big bang cosmology does not lend

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