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

Is the cosmological argument successful?

Extracts from this document...


Is the cosmological argument successful? The Cosmological Argument, also known as the First Cause Argument, is one of the most important arguments for the existence of God, not only because it is one of the more convincing, but also because it is one of the most used. The thought that everything that happens must have a cause and that the first cause of everything must have been God, is widespread. The cosmological argument is the argument from the existence of the world or universe to the existence of a being that brought it into and keeps it in existence. The idea that the universe has an infinite past, stretching back in time into infinity is both philosophically and scientifically problematic. All indications are that there is a point in time at which the universe began to exist. This beginning was either caused or uncaused. The cosmological argument takes the suggestion that the beginning of the universe was uncaused to be impossible. The idea of an uncaused event is absurd; nothing comes from nothing. The universe was therefore caused by something outside it. ...read more.


It would have to explain itself as well as everything else, for if it needed something else as its explanation, its reason, its cause, then it would not be the first and uncaused cause. Such a being would have to be God, of course. If we can prove there is such a first cause, we will have proved there is a God. If, on the one hand, God were thought to have a cause of his existence, then positing the existence of God in order to explain the existence of the universe wouldn't get us anywhere. Without God there would be one entity the existence of which we could not explain, namely the universe; with God there would be one entity the existence of which we could not explain, namely God. Positing the existence of God, then, would introduce as many problems as it solved, and so the cosmological argument would leave us in no better position than it found us. If not, then there is an infinite relapse of causes, with no first link in the great cosmic chain. ...read more.


that the universe could have not existed. Everything exists contingently, the argument from contingency claims, has a cause of its existence, just because we establish that there must be a cause to the order in the universe doesn't mean we have proven that God exists. The uncaused existence of God, whose existence is not reliant but rather is necessary, is consistent with this claim, and so does not present the problem encountered in the discussion of the cosmological argument above. The Cosmological Argument doesn't necessarily have the qualities normally ascribed to God (omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence) by the people who offer the argument in the first place (Christians, Jews, Muslims). The first cause/ cosmological argument states, "Everything has a cause and every cause is the result of a previous cause. There must have been something to start off this chain of events, and that something is God." This argument is self-contradictory. The premise is that everything has a cause; the conclusion is that something exists, namely God, which does not have a cause. If we are going to allow something to exist which is uncaused, it is much more sensible to say that the universe itself is uncaused than to assume the existence of God and say that God is uncaused. Danielle Hilton Page 1 of 2 ...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. The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Cosmological Argument

    Which one do we follow? Aquinas describes a God as being the creator of the universe but faisl to describe his character as the God is seen classically. The God Aquinas describes is from the philoshical piont of view. Aquinas failed to add the essential religious aspects of God in his cosmological arument that would demonstrate God's existence.

  2. Explain the Ontological argument.

    Since the fact that these laws exist requires explanation, he concluded that God must have put them there. Trethowan supported this idea, describing laws as 'far from being self-explanatory.' Newman deduces Gods existence slightly differently to Owen, arguing that existence comes not from objective moral law but conscience.

  1. The Cosmological Argument

    The second way is based on cause. Aquinas asserts that there is chain of cause and effect in the world. (He does not refer to the motion as cause and effect as in the first way, but there are similarities). Nothing can cause itself. Something must have started everything off however, or the chain of cause and effect would not have started.

  2. Birth Of The Universe

    And you can see all the different information there just by adjusting the angle of viewing and the intensity of light. You also know that each piece of this film contains all the data, all the information - though more vague and less clear - of the entire film.

  1. The Cosmological Argument

    It is also believed that Aristotle thought the Prime mover was not religious, as it takes no interest of what goes on in the world. In my opinion, Aristotle raises a valid point in the first mover argument. It does not seem logical that the universe was just a coincidence.

  2. T H E D E S I G N A R ...

    John Lesley illustrates the same point by means of the Firing Squad analogy. A man is condemned to death by firing squad. The squad are all good shots and never miss a target. They shoot at the man but all miss.

  1. What is the cosmological argument?

    In Aquinas second way he noted that nothing could be the cause of itself, because it would have to exist before it existed which is a logical impossibility. Things are caused by an external influence in a succession of events, however these events cannot go back to the beginning of

  2. Explain the Ontological argument from Anslem and Gaunillo's objection 9s?

    Thus, Anselm can conclude that his reasoning applies only to possible objects. Anselm might argue that Gaunilo's argument is fundamentally different than his argument. For Gaunilo tries to establish the existence of a kind of thing while Anselm is trying to establish the existence of a particular being .

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