Archuna Ananthamohan

Topics: Cosmological argument, Aristotle, Universe Pages: 1 (351 words) Published: September 25, 2013
Does Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument prove the existence of God? The Cosmological Argument is, to this day, one of the most powerful arguments used by theists. The essence of the argument has historically rooted to the era of Plato, Parmenides and Aristotle. However, the ideas were fully-developed during medieval Christianity and the argument is often attributed to St Thomas Aquinas. Whilst there have been many variations and refinements to the argument, the in cause, in esse, in fieri and contingency principles remain the core of the argument. The argument follows that “everything in the universe has a cause and is contingent” (Premise I). This is a rational observation of the Universe that is largely undisputed amongst scientists and thinkers. The second premise is that “something cannot come from nothing”. This too is another rational observation which scientists and mathematicians largely agree upon – theories of spontaneous generation and miraculous emergences have long been dismissed. According to natural law, nothing can come from nothing. Hence, the second Premise is a logical and widely-acknowledged statement. The final premise is that “an infinite regression of contingent causes is an inadequate explanation of the world”. Indeed, an infinite regression of contingent causes has been considered problematic and unreasonable across many fields. Particle physicists have argued that there must be a finite regression of levels and causes as otherwise no sense would be made about fundamental interactions, the atom and the Standard Model. Many atheists would also believe in a finite regression of contingent causes as reductionist arguments are fundamentally based on what they consider the most basic cause – the “starting point”. The final premise has, therefore, been accepted by a wide front. As, by nature, everything has a cause and an infinite regression of causes is not possible, there must have been a first cause which is uncaused (Conclusion I). For it to...
Continue Reading

Please join StudyMode to read the full document

Become a StudyMode Member

Sign Up - It's Free