However, one could argue about questioning beyond God and involving infinite regress. The philosopher J.L. Mackie criticized the Cosmological argument because he wanted to question beyond God; why does God have to be the final conclusion?
Another school of thought could argue that the so called prime mover wasn't God and that the universe started by random movement of particles and by the Big Bang. The theory provides a scientific explanation to the beginning of the universe and can be used in favor of or against the cosmological argument. Was the Big Bang caused by a spontaneous random event, or by a deliberate action by God?
The cosmological argument states that everything that exists has a cause for its existence. The universe exists therefore the universe has a cause of its existence. If the universe has a cause of its existence than this cause must be the necessary being i.e. God. As Aquinas states nothing can cause itself, however, there has to be something there before time that was a cause of itself. Therefore, this must be God so therefore God exists.
God had to be the first cause of everything as he was the first being that has existed for all of time for everything else to continue in a chain of causation that lends itself better to the belief that God, as the first cause, is acting on the world here and now. Like dominoes there has to be something there for the series of dominoes to start; thus this starter of the series is God as he cause the series to start. This interpretation sees causation in terms of the factors that sustain an event or keep it going once it has begun. For example, a farmer may plant a seed to grow in that patch of land, but it is the particular qualities of the seed, together with a fertile environment that sustains its growth into a mature plant.
If, on the other hand, God is thought not to have a cause of his existence, i.e. if God is thought to be an uncaused being, then this too raises difficulties for the cosmological argument. For if God were an uncaused being then his existence would be a counter example to it, “Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.” 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. if some things that exist does not have a cause, then the cosmological argument can be resisted on the ground that the universe itself might be such a thing. If God is claimed to exist uncaused, then, then the cosmological argument fails.
Aquinas contradicts himself as he states that something cannot be its own cause, however, then goes onto to say that God was His own cause. If God is His own cause, than why can't we say the same for the universe, that it was its own cause due to random chemical reactions between particles that caused our existence over time?
Scientific evidence is growing stronger with technology being so advanced today. Scientists believe in the Big Bang theory where the universe came into existence due to random chemical reactions resulting in a Big Bang where the universe evolved from. This theory doesn't need the explanation of a design or even a creator of the universe and can support itself. Darwin also believed in the theory of evolution where species have evolved from their ancestors to become better and well adapted in the environment we live in for the survival of the fittest. This is another possible scientific theory that doesn't mention a supreme being from where we came from.
Aquinas' third way is from a different tradition of cosmological arguments; ones that are based on the contingeny of the universe and of everything in it. Contingency has a close connection with the idea of dependancy. For example, the existence of human beings are contingent upon the existence of their parents, the existence of a forest is contingent upon the existnece of the availablilty of water to the trees' roots etc.
Aquinas tries to prove that a neccessary being has an existence that is independant of evrything else, is external; it has always existed and will never cease to exist and it has to exist; it is impossible that it could be different, no matter how past, present or future circumstances might vary. This is a very good point to argue as many religions such as Islam, Christianity and Judaism will agree with this. As it staes in the Holy Quran: 'All praise and thanks be to Allah, the Lord of the Alameen (universe and everthing that exists in it).' (Al-Fatiha verse 2).
Aquinas argued that if there were a time where nothing existed, then there would still be nothing as nothing can bring itself into existence. Therefore the cause of the universe must be external to it and must always have existed. There must have been a neccessary being to bring everything else into existence. Aquinas argues that this neccessary being must have been God. According to the theory pf contingeny, if God did not exist, thatn nothing would exist as there would be no neccessary being to bring about the creation of the universe.
However, Aquinas argues that it is not possible for a being to be explained by nothing. There has to be a reason for the existence of things. Human beings are contingent beings as they cannot continue forever. How, therefore, would Aquinas explain the existence of neccessary beings?
Mackie argues that Aquinas is committing a fallacy if he thinks that he can jump from 'every thing at some time does not exist' to 'at some time everything does not exist'. It may be a case that there is an infinite series of overlapping, yet contingent, things in the universe. If there was a possibilty, claims Mackie, then there would be no need to hypothesise the existence of a neccessary being.
A school of thought may argue that the God that Aquinas is describing is different from the religious Gods. Which one do we follow. Aquinas has failed to add the essential religious aspects of God in his cosmological arument that would demonstrate God's existence.
b) Consider the view that the weaknesses are more convincing then the strengths (6)
The Big Bang theory provides a scientific theory to explain the beginning of the universe. Both supporters of the cosmological argument and those who deny it use the Big Bang theory as a proof for or against the existnece of God. Scientific observation has confirmed that there was a beginning to the universe and has provided further evidence that the universe developed a structure very early in its history. The theory doesn't need the existence of God to support it as it states that random chemical reactions occured and a big bang occured where the universe began.
Darwin believed in the theory of evolution where species evolved from their ancestors who had the fittest and healthiest genes to become better, well adapted species to their environment that they live in for the survival of the fittest. Darwin believed that we evolved from sea to land over millions of years. We were once small microorganisms that evolved as time went by. This is another possible scientific theory that doesn't mention a supreme being from where we came from and is used very often as evidence as to how everything came to be.
A school of thought may argue that the God that Aquinas is describing is different from the religious Gods. 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.
Aquinas states that 'everthing must have a cause'. He makes God the exception to this. However, a critic might come back with the response if we're going to allow for exceptions than couldn't we just as well make the universe the exception? We would be saying that everything that occurs within the universe must indeed have a cause, but the universe as such doen't. The existence of the universe requires no further explanation as it simply is. This would rule out the need to posit God.
It can also be asked of the cosmological argumet, why must God be the ultimate cause and why is God the point at which our search for an explanation for the existence of things must end? Why does the existence of the God not require any further explanation? This criticism links with that of J.L. Mackie of infinite regress. He uses the example of firstly a finite series of hooks each one hanging one above the other until we reach the all. Take away the wall attachment and the hooks fall. This is how Aquinas seems to describe his version of infine regress. However, Makie uses the example of infinte regress where the series od hooks is one on top of the other with no limit. An infinite regress after all maybe possible; therefore there is no need to posculate a first cause.
I believe that Aquinas does an excellent job in trying to prove the existence of God by motion and change, cause and contingency. He agrees with all the major religions as he believes that God exists. This argument will be persuasive for the believer to take into consideration as it is trying to prove the fact that God exists. However, there are too many criticisms to take into account for the non-believer to take into consideration that God does exist.