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

The Cosmological Argument

Extracts from this document...


The Cosmological Argument The cosmological argument is a posteriori, as it is based on what can be seen in the world & universe. The name comes from the term 'cosmos', which refers to the universe as a perfect and well ordered system. The Argument predates Christianity. Its earliest forms can be traced back to a man named Plato, a widely known and studied philosopher of the ancient world. He used it arguing that the universe must have been started by a 'first cause' or 'first mover'. Aristotle also developed on of the earliest forms of this argument. Aristotle's concept of a "Prime Mover" is a fundamental component behind the cosmological arguments for the existence of some sort of god. His basic idea was that everything that happens is caused by something else. The argument basically states: * Things come into existence because something has caused them to happen. * Things are caused to exist, but they do not have to exist. * There is a chain of causes that goes back to the beginning. The key idea is that if something exists there must be preliminary factors that have influenced and caused it to exist. The argument then goes on to state the following about the beginning of time; * Time began with the creation of the universe. * There must have been a first cause, which brought the contingent universe. ...read more.


5. The Fifth Way - Teleological. God made the world with 'Telos' purpose. Aquinas states that the purpose of the world is shown through its design. The Kalam version of the cosmological argument is a more modern version. It has it roots in ancient Arabic philosophy. 'Kalam' is an Arabic term meaning to 'argue' or 'discuss'. The argument was developed by the Muslim scholars Al-Kindi and Al-Ghazali. William Lane Craig has done more than anyone to bring the Kalam argument to the attention of contemporary philosophers. Craig's argument has a very simple structure. 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. Craig regards the first premise as intuitively obvious. Most of his effort is devoted to the defense of premise. Craig gives two main philosophical arguments for saying that the universe has not always existed - one based on the supposed impossibility of an actual infinite, the other based on the claim that even if an actual infinite were possible, it could not be 'formed by successive addition'. This part of the Kalam argument can be split up into the following: * The present would not exist in an actual infinite universe, because successive additions cannot be added into an actual infinite. * The present does exist, as a result of a chronological series of past events. ...read more.


He says that as an 'argument for first cause', the cosmological seems a reasonable one. But it does not by itself establish the existence of god with all the proportions ascribed to them. There is also a list of many criticisms of Aquinas's arguments directly: * Some scholars have argued that Aquinas's arguments rest on assumptions that are no longer widely held. His view rested on a medieval science hierarchy - that everything can be ranked, things are better than others. This is not on time today, in modern world. * There doesn't have to be a first cause. Why only one cause, why not a series of causes throughout the universe. * Why couldn't god have made the earth & universe, and then died. After all, a mother causes a child but then dies. * If everything came from something where did God come from. * Trying to put into words concepts we don't understand. The argument begins with 'this world' and concludes with concepts of which we have no experience, e.g. uncaused, infinity. * Since everything in the universe is contingent, everything could cease to exist simultaneously, and then the universe itself would cease. But if it can cease to exist, then it must be contingent. Recent thinking in physics has also questioned the eternal nature of matter. These weaknesses are fairly successful in weakening the argument. They highlight that points made by Aquinas and Craig can never actually be proved, and the effectiveness of the cosmological argument will always depend on people's opinions of points made by others, and never on fact. ...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. Outline the key features of the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God

    This is supported by Richard Swinburne: 'It is extraordinary that there should exist something at all. Surely the most natural state of affairs in nothing, no universe, no God, no nothing...if we can explain the many bits of the universe by one simple being which keeps them in existence, we

  2. The design argument depends on key assumptions, in particular that the order in the ...

    "You will find it to be nothing but one great machine, subdivided into infinite number of lesser machines...beyond what human senses and faculties can trace and explain" Cleanthes. In this quote he also shows there must be some great intelligence.

  1. T H E C O S M O L O G ...

    We know - from Einstein's principle of the conservation of matter - that matter and energy remain constant, so why should matter and energy not be the constants that are necessary to explain the contingency of everything else? 6. An infinite series is possible.

  2. Explain the Ontological argument.

    The evidence from design points to a designer, which the argument concludes, is God. Design qua regularity looks at design in relation to order and regularity of the universe, which suggests a designer at work. Just as a garden suggests a gardener because of the order i.e.

  1. The Teleological Argument.

    Hoyle makes the point that the inter-relatedness of organisms and the earth is too much of a 'perfect coincidence' to be believed that it wasn't designed by anyone, these odd coincidences need to be explained. Swinburne's conclusion to this argument is that the world's conformity to natural laws is too great a phenomenon to be explained by science.

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

    Modern scientists are critical of uncertain facts and especially at what they see as mystical factors. An argument would be that through theology scripture, far from being mystical, is an exact science in so much as it is firstly divine revelation and secondly as so is factual.

  1. Is the Cosmological Argument a good argument?

    One criticism is that Aquinas contradicted himself. He said that everything must be caused by something else, but then he said that there must be an uncaused cause or a First Cause.

  2. The Cosmological Argument

    This first cause was itself uncaused. This first cause is God. Aquinas' idea rests here on the ideas of contingency and necessity. He claims that everything is contingent; everything relies on something else for its existence. However, not everything can be contingent, or nothing would have started in the first place; thus something is needed (necessary)

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