The Cosmological Argument

GCSE Religious Studies (Philosophy & Ethics)

Explain the Cosmological Argument

Plato's argument is based on the idea that a thing cannot be self-moving. By this he means that if, for instance, we see a ball flying through the air, we must assume that something caused that ball to move. If we then say that the ball moved because a bat hit it, we can then ask what caused the bat to move - and so on infinitely.

From this Plato concludes that there must be some first cause of motion, which is not itself, the result of some other cause. For Plato, this was "Soul" or "Life", which gave motion to the whole world.

Aristotle tries to prove that movement is eternal and that there is an eternal Prime Mover. He argues that since movement is eternal there can be no first or last change. If there was a first change there would have to have existed something capable of causing change, and to explain why something caused a change at a certain time and not before we must assume some actual change just prior to that time, or a change before the supposed first change. Change therefore must be eternal. Eternal change is explained by the assumption of the existence of a being, which is unmoved (for if it were self-moved it would cause change and also experience it) which can cause eternal movement. This immaterial Prime Mover causes all movement and maintains the eternal life of the universe. In the book “metaphysics” he calls this Prime Mover "God," whose only activity is pure thought. It must think of itself only, since it is the most excellent of all things. It is also believed that Aristotle thought the Prime mover was not religious, as it takes no interest of what goes on in the world.

In my opinion, Aristotle raises a valid point in the first mover argument. It does not seem logical that the universe was just a coincidence. I believe that something must have started and made the first move and not just fall out of place by chance. However, I would disagree that the prime mover is eternal. I think that what had created, now ceases to exist. In my opinion there seems to be no activity in the world of which is suggested by Aristotle. Also it could be argued that there is more than just one mover within the ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Aquinas' argument is similar to Plato's except that Aquinas concludes that the source of all motion must be God. Aquinas then goes on to give four other arguments, which he claims, point to the existence of God - these are called the Five Ways. The first, uses the idea of motion; the others are as follows:

Second way: Everything that exists must have a cause. There must have been a first cause that was not caused by anything else otherwise this process would go on for eternity. This first cause must be God.

Third Way: Everything that exists at one time did not and may not at some time in the future. However, at one time none of these things existed - there was nothing - but because "nothing can come from nothing" there must have been something whose existence was necessary. This being must be God.

Fourth Way: Things in the world have different qualities and degrees of perfection and goodness. There must be an ultimate in goodness and perfection. Therefore, God must exist as the source of these qualities.

Fifth Way: Everything in the world has some 'end' or 'purpose'. This purpose must come from an intelligent being and not chance. Therefore, God provides everything that exists with purpose.

Infinite regression basically raises the argument there would be an infinite regression of creators and we would never be able to find the first, uncaused cause. Since, by description (the questions says that "everything needs a creator") there wouldn't be any uncaused cause. This would mean that the sequence of creation is eternal.

- The premise of the Big Bang is that the entire universe was compacted into a small ball, which, after randomly coming into existence for no apparent reason in the first place, exploded into all space, time, matter and energy in an instant. However after looking closely at the explanation of the theory, it seems to have been misunderstood. The argument to me seems Darwin meant there was no actual explosion, but that everything started together in a small ball n slowly started moving away from one another. Through this theory I would imagine that Darwin would have believed that the universe will keep expanding forever and eventually will cease to exist again. This theory in my opinion is very weak; it still does not argue how reason, matter, space, time, and energy came into existence. It misses the creation part of the “tiny ball” at the start. However if this theory was true then infinite regression could not be true, this would mean that the universe is not eternal and there is actually no “mover” within the universe. Also in my opinion what Darwin may see by the universe expanding is perhaps the next move by one of the universes “movers”, the argument of the Big Bang Theory does not actually explain anything on creation in my opinion.

- Mackie believed that if God has metaphysical necessity, God's existence is contingent, so some reason would need to be required for God's own existence. So, if God necessarily exists in all possible worlds, it remains logically possible that God does not exist in any (and all) possible world.

Hume’s argument asked why we must conclude that the universe had to have a beginning. Hume continued to say that if the universe did have a start it does not mean that anything caused it to come into existence. Russell also supported this. He saw it, as just because humans have a mother doesn’t mean this is true for the universe.

Kant looked at the argument and believed that the idea that every event must have a first cause only applied to the world of sense experience. It cannot apply to something that we have no experience in. Kant however, did not actually mention that God was the cause of the prime move. He felt that we could not answer questions on knowledge we don’t have. He saw God as existing outside the universe and therefore we cannot ask questions about him, as we have no experience with him.

Bertrand Russell denies that the universe needs an explanation; it just is. Russell contends that since we derive the concept of cause from our observation of particular things, we cannot ask about the cause of something like the universe that we cannot experience. The universe is "just there, and that's all" in his belief. He supported Hume.