The Cosmological Argument is an a posteriori argument which attempts to prove that there is a rational basis for the belief in God. The argument attempts to prove that God exists by evaluating the scale and nature of the cosmos. Most supporters of the cosmological argument argue that the universe could only have come into existence if it were caused by an uncaused cause. There is evidence to suggest that the universe is contingent (for example the big bang). However the success of the cosmological argument is debatable due to numerous arguments and criticisms from philosophers such as Hume and Kant.
Thomas Aquinas, known for his rational beliefs in God. Aquinas states that, everything has a cause, nothing is its own cause, a chain of causes cannot be infinite, therefore there must be a first cause and god is the first cause. The first cause is described as a ‘necessary being’ also known as God. Aquinas does not believe in Infinite Regress as he believe God does not need an explanation. That sometimes ‘things just are’ we need something to believe that that something made us. But if that thing is the creator, what could of made him. That is the question. For example, something can’t be moved without something or someone moving it. That is the same as God. This theory encourages the reader to consider that there may actually be a God. How are we here? And why? God. Aquinas represents his opinion as the five causes which represent standard form: P1-Everything has a cause
P2-Nothing is its own cause
P3-A chain of causes cannot be infinite
IC4-Therefore, there must be a ‘First Cause’
C-God is the final cause
Cause two, nothing is its own cause, suggests that an effect doesn’t happen before the cause. Meaning, something can’t just happen without something happening to it. For example, your eyes can’t just turn from brown to blue; you have to get blue contacts. This contradicts the first cause, everything has a cause. So...