Identify the main strengths of the Cosmological Argument

GCSE Religious Studies (Philosophy & Ethics)

Nick Gibson Miss Newton

Identify the main strengths of the Cosmological Argument, and how do they outweigh the weaknesses?

There are many strengths within the Cosmological Argument which have proven theories and ways to prove the existence of God. Many of these strengths have come from such scholars as; Copleston, Aquinas and Leibniz, all of which have put together major points to prove the existence of a non-contingent being.

One of the main strengths of the Cosmological Argument is from Aquinas way I that was about motion. This would be a posteriori argument because you need to gather evidence from the world around you. Aquinas stated that “Whatever is put in motion, is put in motion by another”, by this he is saying that nothing can be both mover and moved. So nothing can move by itself, it is easily to prove this by using an example in the world. For example you could talk about the line of humans, they depend on other factors to move. However you could state that humans move by themselves because they can move at their own free will, but that is only technically true, because we rely on muscles, blood and the brain to help us move so we are not moving without help from other factors. Nothing in this world can move by itself, there will always be something moving it.

Another strength is from Aquinas way II that was about cause. He states that “nothing is ever found to be the efficient cause of itself” thus meaning that nothing can reproduce by itself or create itself. Yet it could be said that the matter which created the earth was created by itself. Nevertheless if that were true then that would mean that matter was non-contingent and would mean we are all non-contingent however we are because everything has a beginning and an end.

One criticism of the Cosmological Argument asks why cannot God not be the originator ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

One criticism of the Cosmological Argument asks why cannot God not be the originator and now no longer exist? On the other hand Copleston replied with his “In Esse” theory that God has to be there for everything to exist. Without God we would not be here, because he is non-contingent being and outside of time he will always be there (whom created the universe). Like the example of a man counting back from infinity and not being able to find the man counting, it would be the same with finding God. If we looked so far into the future or in the past, not matter how far we looked God would always be there because he is a necessary being, created by himself and thus can not cease to exist. This relates to the theory of a Necessary being. Lane Craig said, “God did ex nihilo” when creating the world, so without God nothing would exist.

Many of these scholars such as Aquinas took big leaps into linking God into the picture. They all believe that the first cause was God. However all the scholars who support the Cosmological Argument already believe in God which is fairly biased. Even though the link to God is not evidentially correct, the statement about a first being and a first non-contingent cause is true. There must have been a first cause to the Universe one, which created itself.

One criticism is saying that beings come and go but the energy and matter of which they are made stay with us. That is true because energy cannot be destroyed or created only moved. On the other hand there must have been something in which created the matter, the matter could not have just appeared which leads on to the first cause theory.

In conclusion there are many strengths which lead to the theory of a first cause. However the proof of God is yet from discovery. God is just presumed as a first cause, however it could be anything. God has just been placed at the top of the chain and made a first mover. There is a necessary being still, it does not necessarily have to be God. The strengths outweigh the weaknesses a lot in the theory about necessary beings, and that everything is contingent by the evidence which is around us, moreover the proof about God is not that evidentially correct.

Philosophy Page of