and both posited first cause arguments, though each had certain notable caveats. Plato posited a basic argument in in which he argued that motion in the world and the was "imparted motion" that required some kind of "self-originated motion" to set it in motion and to maintain that motion. Plato also posited a "" of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the creator of the Cosmos in his work . For Plato, the demiurge lacked the ability to create out of nothing. It was only able to organize the necessity, the only other co-existent element or presence in Plato's .
Aristotle also put forth the idea of a First Cause, often referred to as the "" or "Mover” in his work . For Aristotle too, as for Plato, the underlying essence of the always was in existence and always would be (which in turn follows ' famous statement that "nothing can come from nothing"). Aristotle posited an underlying or substance of which the Universe was composed, and it was this substance that the Prime Mover organized and set into motion. The Prime Mover did not organize matter physically, but was instead a being who constantly thought about thinking itself, and who organized the Cosmos by making matter the object of "aspiration or desire" The Prime Mover was, to Aristotle, a "thinking on thinking", an process of pure thought.
Centuries later, the initiated a full-fledged inquiry into the question of , in which he distinguished between and . He argued that the fact of existence could not be inferred from or accounted for by the essence of existing things, and that form and matter by themselves could not originate and interact with the movement of the Universe or the progressive actualization of existing things. Thus, he reasoned that existence must be due to an that necessitates, imparts, gives, or adds existence to an essence. To do so, the cause must coexist with its effect and be an existing thing.
, adapted the argument he found in his reading of Aristotle and Avicenna to form one of the most influential versions of the cosmological argument. His conception of First Cause was the idea that the Universe must have been caused by something that was itself uncaused, which he asserted was .
Many other philosophers and theologians have posited cosmological arguments both before and since Aquinas. The versions sampled in the following sections are representative of the most common derivations of the argument.
The cosmological argument could be stated as follows:
-
Every finite and being has a cause.
- Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.
-
A cannot be of infinite length.
Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.
According to the argument, the existence of the Universe requires an explanation, and the creation of the Universe by a First Cause, generally assumed to be God, is that explanation. In light of the , a stylized version of argument has emerged (sometimes called the , the following form of which was set forth by )
- Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
- The Universe began to exist.
- Therefore, the Universe had a cause.
Question 2
There are three major arguments that attempt to explain the existence of God. Firstly, it is important to establish a definition of God. According to philosophers God is an infinitely perfect being that upholds a divine unity of ultimate goodness and of ultimate power. God is referred to as Omniscient, Omnipotent and Eternal. God has unlimited knowledge and intelligence, so basically God is the ultimate model of perfectionism. Though all Philosophers agree with this definition of God, it does not state whether or not this ideal concept of God exists. The Ontological, Cosmological and Teleological have been developed throughout time to attempt to prove God existence. There have also been many criticisms into these arguments, which attempt to disprove each argument.
The Ontological argument was developed by Anselm; a theist who argued for the existence of God. In his argument he refers to God as a perfect being, therefore ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’. He began his argument by saying that even a ‘fool’ (atheist) can grasp or understand the concept of a being than of ‘which nothing greater can be conceived’ as they already have an understanding or idea of what it means in their mind. Though this idea exists in their mind, it does not mean God doesn’t exist in reality. Anselm refers to God as a perfect being, and because he is so perfect he must have infinite perfectionism, therefore Anselm is arguing that if God lacked existence he would not be perfect, as he is perfect he must exist.
The Cosmological argument refers to the process of arguing from the cosmos ‘world’, to the existence of God. The Cosmological argument basically draws upon St. Tomas Aquinas’ Five Ways for the existence of God. Firstly, the cosmological argument says it is important to establish that every event has a cause, and everything has a beginning.
Therefore there must have been a first cause that requires no prior causes, which is referred to as God. Leibniz also developed an argument where he asks the question ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ He claims that a sufficient reason to account for reality there must be a being which is able to create existence.
There are many criticisms against the Cosmological argument. Firstly, Hume states that the arguments put forward reveals that the universe logically demands a causal explanation, but this may lay within the nature of the universe itself with regards to scientific evidence. Hick also disagrees with the argument as it fails explain the cause of God. Kant says it fails as to speak of causation outside of time and space has no meaning, because causation requires time and space. Another argument against the cosmological argument comes from Mill. He draws his conclusion from experience, noting that experience teaches that all events are caused. God, as a cause that was not itself caused cannot be conceived, so experience does not logically support the first cause, therefore this concept of God does not exist.
