Another criticism of this third way is the issue of the infinite past. If the past is infinite, then there is no beginning to start from. We have no reason to believe that the infinity premises of Aquinas’ arguments are true. Although, we also have no reason to believe that they are false.
The five ways also asks how can the cosmological argument avoid contradicting itself. For example, if nothing causes itself how can there be a first cause, which does not require a cause other than itself. The cosmological argument can work on the assumption that the cause of existing things is not a thing, in which case the above contradiction would disappear.
Leibniz put forward the cosmological argument. He argues that the ‘great principle’ of this argument is that “nothing takes place without a sufficient reason.” Leibniz went onto formulate a version of the cosmological argument similar to, but also different from that of Aquinas. In place of Aquinas’ idea that every event has a cause, Leibniz observed that every event must have a sufficient reason for its existence, since nothing happens without a reason. But everything can also be explained with reference to something else within the world. Therefore the reason why there is something at all rather than nothing must come from outside the world. For a sufficient reason to account for such things there must be a being, which is able to create existence. Such a being must exist of itself because there is something rather than nothing. Therefore a necessary being exists, which we call god.
Copleston formulated three key premises. In his first premise, Copleston claims that all things in the universe are ‘might not have beens’ in that they are dependent on something else for their existence. Nothing in the universe is non-dependent.
Copleston’s second premise moves from saying that everything in the universe is contingent to the claim that the universe as a whole is contingent. He says it would be possible to argue that the universe as a whole is necessary and that everything within the universe depends on the universe as a necessarily existent totality.
Copleston’s third premise argues that whatever the universe depends on has to be necessary and that whatever this is, is the same as the god of religious belief.
Bertrand Russell reject Copleston’s first premise and rejects the idea that contingent or dependent. This is simply because the language of contingency implies there must be something necessary. Russell says that the universe “just is.” According to Russell, the universe requires no explanation, as it is just brute fact. However, the acceptance of the universe as a brute fact rules out requiring an explanation.
Supporters of Copleston’s argument claim that god is a better ultimate explanation than the brute fact of the universe. If supporters of the cosmological argument insisted there must be a cause for the universe then surely these critics can insist on a cause for god. If god made the universe, who made god?
Another argument is the Kalam argument. This is a predecessor to the cosmological argument from the Islamic Kalam tradition. In talking of updating the cosmological the Kalam argument plays a major role. This argument was influenced by Aristotle. However, William Lane Craig recently resurrected it, and in doing so made several pints; everything that begins to exist has a cause e.g. parents having sex to create a child. The universe began to exist – the big bang theory does seem to support a beginning to the universe. The universe had a cause, that cause is God.
One criticism of this updated argument is that there is some evidence that we can have uncaused causes e.g. the fundamental particle. But, perhaps there is a cause for these particles coming into existence; we just don’t know it yet. The second premise of this argument is as follows; Many people assume the big bang is true, but there is a lot of evidence against it. For example there are rival theories such as continuous creation. Perhaps matter is coming into existence all the time. The Kalam argument depends on the universe having a beginning whether the big bang is true or not. If the big bang didn’t happen then the second premise fails.
Some philosophers argue that even if there was a first cause of the universe, there is no proof that this cause is God. The first cause could be anything. For example, David Hume argued that the first cause could be the material physical world rather than god. This is just as satisfactory an explanation as God.
The success of the different versions of the Cosmological Argument depend on a willingness to ask the question, 'Why is there a universe?' If you simply accept that the universe is just there and does not need an explanation, or that it is explained by an infinite regress, then the Cosmological Argument fails. God must also be shown to be a simpler or better ultimate explanation than the brute fact of the existence of the universe.
Lindsay Graham
U63
St. Thomas Aquinas, Teacher’s notes
The Puzzle of God, Peter Vardy, Chapter 8
The Puzzle of God, Peter Vardy, Chapter 8
