Nichi Tuitt The Cosmological Argument

Nichi Tuitt 1.) Examine the key features of the cosmological argument 2.) For what reasons have some thinkers rejected the cosmological argument? How far is it possible to regard the cosmological argument as strong? There are many philosophers and theories which are both in favour and not in favour of the cosmological argument “nothing can be created without a cause”. The cosmological argument is an a posteriori argument. Aquinas said that” the world is in motion; something must have caused the motion…. The unmoved mover being God. One main feature of the cosmological argument is Aristotle’s unmoved mover theory. Aristotle believed that God was the unmoved mover who created the universe; both Plato and Aristotle believed nothing can be created without a cause. However Aristotle took it a step further and said “there is a substance which is eternal and unmovable and separate from sensible things. He believed that all things in the world are in motion so therefore something had to have set them into motion; he believed that this something, the unmoved mover is God. Another main feature of the cosmological argument is Aquinas’s theory. He developed the demonstration of which the first three ways make up the cosmological argument. Aquinas’s first way is motion. He believed that in the world things are in motion and something must have put them into motion, they must have been moved by something else. He believed that there must have been a prime mover. He believed this was the unmoved mover, God. Aquinas’s second way was cause. He said that nothing could cause it self because that would mean it would have existed before it existed which is impossible. He said that there must have been a first cause an uncaused cause that caused all things to happen. Aquinas believed this was God. The third and final way (when concerned with the cosmological argument) is contingency. Aquinas believed that there must have been a time when nothing existed, so the cause of the universe must be external to it and must have always existed. Aquinas believed that a necessary being must have brought everything else into existence; Aquinas concluded that the necessary being was God and if God did not exist then nothing would exist. From his three ways Aquinas concluded that God must have created the universe.

One more feature of the cosmological argument is the kalam argument. This was developed by al-Ghazali it was developed to explain God’s creation of the universe however it seeks to prove that God was the first cause of the universe. The argument was later developed by William Lane Craig. He said you cannot add to an actual infinite amount, the past is just a succession of events added to one another. Therefore since the universe is finite it must have had a beginning. Ed miller adapted the kalam argument. He said if we had an infinite universe we would have an infinite number of days. The end of an infinite series of days would never be reached therefore we would never reach today. He concluded that we don’t have an infinite universe because the universe is infinite and must have been caused; therefore the cause of the universe is God. Leibniz was another philosopher that believed god was the ultimate cause for the universe. He believed there had to be sufficient reason for the universe to exist. Leibniz believed that for something to exist it needed a full explanation. He said that if we supposed the world was everlasting that it kept going forever we would never come to a sufficient reason for its existence. We wouldn’t be happy with the unending regress. He said we should recognise that the whole universe depends on God who is uncaused and doesn’t depend on anything else. Copleston believed that sufficient reason isn’t always needed he said there are some things in the world which do not have a reason for existence. Things are contingent or might not have been’s. He said we might not have existed if our parents hadn’t met. Copleston said that all things within the universe can only be explained by some cause or reason external to them. Everything in the universe must be external to the universe so outside the universe there must be a cause for everything in the universe. Copleston believed that a necessary being must have created the universe he described the necessary being as something that must and cannot not exist. 2.) Although there are many theories in favour of the cosmological argument, there are theories that are not in favour of the theory. “I should say the universe is just there and that’s all”. Many thinkers reject the cosmological argument. David Hume criticises the argument. He says “how can anything that exists from eternity have a cause since that relation implies a priority in time and in a beginning of existence”. Hume also said that even if the universe did begin it doesn’t mean that something caused it. Russell supported Hume’s view, he said “just because humans have a mother it doesn’t mean the universe had a mother”. Russell stated “I should say the universe is just there and that’s all”.

Quentin smith uses quantum mechanics to demonstrate the possibility of things existing without a direct cause, that things could cause themselves. Critics have argued against Aquinas’s argument on the basis of quantum theory. They believed that things could have just caused themselves without a direct identifiable cause. The laws of cause and effect appear to breakdown with things spontaneously coming into being. Some reject the cosmological theory because at times it seems to contradict itself. Aquinas says nothing can cause itself, however he then goes onto say something must exist that can be the cause of itself. Namely God. Others reject the cosmological argument because it doesn’t seem like sufficient evidence for God. Brian Davies says the cosmological argument cannot stand alone as proof for the existence of evidence the God, it would have to be supported by other evidence. Davies said that the argument doesn’t establish the existence of God. I think that the cosmological argument is very strong because there are many theories that support it and the arguments that support it outweigh the ones that don’t support it. Another reason I think the cosmological argument is strong is because nothing could have existed without a cause and for there to be a cause there must have been a transcendent uncaused cause, an unmoved mover.