Cosmological Argument
The Cosmological Argument as proof of God
The Cosmological Argument is born out of premise that the world must have a cause and a reason for existing. The word ‘cosmos’ comes the Greek word meaning concerned with cause. The argument is posteriori in its nature, meaning it is based on thing we experience in the universe, and takes a probabilistic approach to try and decipher how said evidence came to being. In this essay I will focus on arguments from Aquinas, Leibniz and Frederick Copleston, whilst also touching upon some weaker, not so significant arguments from Kalam. These arguments attempt to prove how the Cosmological Arguments provides evidence of God.
The first and most well known argument is that of Aquinas’ 5 ways, of which the first three focus on using motion, cause and contingency to aid the cosmological argument. St Thomas Aquinas, a second century philosopher with little knowledge of science, sought to prove God as an explanation for the universe. His first way, motion, argues that nothing can move without an external force, a prime mover. He also stated that everything in the universe is the result of a chain of causes and effects, started by the prime mover. All causes come after their effect, but the concept of cause and effect cannot regress into infinity. Aquinas said that everything is contingent , at one point it did not exist, this created the question of who is the prime mover or first cause? Aquinas, being a second century Catholic, resorted to the bible. Concluding that the first cause must be the omnipotent God. The strength of this argument as evidence for God stems from the reality that imagining infinite regression is impossible, making Aquinas’ argument somewhat believable and logical. Due to the reasonable nature of the argument it is easy to accept God as the first cause of the universe.
Gotfreid Liebniz, although arguing the same point, takes a different approach. He states his principle of sufficient reason in support of
The Cosmological Argument is born out of premise that the world must have a cause and a reason for existing. The word ‘cosmos’ comes the Greek word meaning concerned with cause. The argument is posteriori in its nature, meaning it is based on thing we experience in the universe, and takes a probabilistic approach to try and decipher how said evidence came to being. In this essay I will focus on arguments from Aquinas, Leibniz and Frederick Copleston, whilst also touching upon some weaker, not so significant arguments from Kalam. These arguments attempt to prove how the Cosmological Arguments provides evidence of God.
The first and most well known argument is that of Aquinas’ 5 ways, of which the first three focus on using motion, cause and contingency to aid the cosmological argument. St Thomas Aquinas, a second century philosopher with little knowledge of science, sought to prove God as an explanation for the universe. His first way, motion, argues that nothing can move without an external force, a prime mover. He also stated that everything in the universe is the result of a chain of causes and effects, started by the prime mover. All causes come after their effect, but the concept of cause and effect cannot regress into infinity. Aquinas said that everything is contingent , at one point it did not exist, this created the question of who is the prime mover or first cause? Aquinas, being a second century Catholic, resorted to the bible. Concluding that the first cause must be the omnipotent God. The strength of this argument as evidence for God stems from the reality that imagining infinite regression is impossible, making Aquinas’ argument somewhat believable and logical. Due to the reasonable nature of the argument it is easy to accept God as the first cause of the universe.
Gotfreid Liebniz, although arguing the same point, takes a different approach. He states his principle of sufficient reason in support of