His second way is – the uncaused causer. This follows a similar line of argument but replaces motion with cause. Aquinas concluded that common sense observation tells us that no object creates itself. In other words some previous object had to create it. He believed that God was the uncaused first cause who begun the chain of existence for all things. Experience tells us that everything is caused, nothing is caused by itself, so there cannot possibly be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist, therefore there must be an uncaused first cause – God. One of the differences between these two ways is that in the first, attention is centred on the fact that things are acted upon, whereas in the second, the attention is on things as agents. Again this is a strength because everything we see in the world has a beginning therefore it is reasonable to assume the universe had a beginning.
Thomas Aquinas third way is – Contingent and necessary objects. This way defines two types of objects in the universe, contingent beings and necessary beings. A contingent being is an object that cannot exist without a necessary being causing its existence. Aquinas believed that the existence of contingent beings would ultimately necessitate a being, which must exist for all the contingent beings to exist. In other words, contingent beings are caused; not every being can be contingent. So there must exist a being, which is necessary to cause contingent beings, therefore this infers that the necessary being is God. Aquinas believes this because if all beings were contingent, then at one time nothing would have existed. This is because there would have been a time prior to all things coming into existence, but if that is the case then nothing would have been able to exist because everything contingent would have had to have a prior cause. Thus all beings cannot be contingent.
The main reasoning for Thomas Aquinas’ five ways being a strength to the cosmological argument is that they are a posteriori. They are based on experience and observation of the universe, because of this they seem to make perfect sense to us, as our surroundings and the universe are the only things we really understand and can relate to.
The Kalam argument has its roots in medieval Arabic philosophy and theology. The Arabic word means ‘natural theology’ or ‘philosophical theism’. The Kalam arguments try to demonstrate that the existence of an actual infinite is impossible and that even if it were possible, the universe itself is not actually infinite and hence, must have a beginning. Muslims believe that God created ‘ex nihilo’ therefore ‘the beginning of the universe was the beginning of time’. As the rules of nature did not exist before the beginning of the universe it cannot be the result of natural causes but the result of a personal agent creating outside of time. William Craig created a modern version of the argument, firstly it argues that the universe had a first cause, and secondly that the first cause is a personal creator. Craig sets the argument out in the following way; whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence, the universe began to exist. Many people see this as a very logical theory, ‘in many respects the argument makes sense. For instance it is not logical to claim the universe is infinite yet also claim that successive moments are being added to it’. – Bill Ramey. This makes it an extremely strong theory and a key feature of the cosmological argument.
Another strong side to it is, it doesn’t matter on how u believe the world is originated, it can be used to explain scientific theories such as the big bang, or religious theories such as the Genesis creation.
The final key feature of the cosmological argument going to be explored is the concept of ‘the principle of sufficient reason’, developed by Leibniz. Leibniz tried to explain why there was something in the universe rather than nothing. In other words, nothing takes place without sufficient reason, even if the universe had always been in existence, it would still require an explanation, as why is there something rather than nothing? This avoids the problem of infinite regression by reinterpreting the argument through looking at explanations rather than a series of events.
Whenever one finds an answer to one question, more always follow. For example, science has offered to theory of the ‘big bang’ to explain the material origins of the present universe, but why is it here? Furthermore, why does the universe have the ‘laws’ it has and why is consciousness, especially amongst humans, a key feature of it? Concerning the limitation of the physical realm to provide answers to such questions, Leibniz writes: ‘ you will never find in those states a full reason why there should be any world rather than none…. it is evident that the reason must be sought elsewhere’. So if the answer as to why this present universe exists cannot be found in the material realm, then it must according to Leibniz, lie elsewhere and it must be something different from that which is found in the world. Now the fact that there is something rather than nothing means that things have a tendency towards existence. If things have a tendency towards existence then ‘ that series of things will be forthcoming, which in actual fact affords the greatest quantity of reality’.
The cosmological argument offers an explanation of why anything exists and why it has this type of order, it seems that it is a strong argument, as it has universal appeal because it is based on that which we all experience – the world. The cosmological argument bases itself on experience of the world and therefore can be related to religious theories and is compatible with scientific ones, thus making it appeal to an even wider audience, also it is up for negotiation and many different versions of theories have been made up inside this one argument inferring it has many strengths. However the cosmological argument does have many weaknesses stated by people like David Hume and A. Kenny.
