The Cosmological Argument Is Not a Strong Argument for the Existence of God

Topics: Cosmological argument, Existence, Theology Pages: 6 (2130 words) Published: April 8, 2013
The Cosmological Argument is not a Strong Argument for the Existence of God Mardi Campbell
PHI 208
Prof. Michele Clearman-Warner
March 11, 2013

The Cosmological Argument is not a Strong Argument for the Existence of God
The Cosmological Argument for the existence of God is one of the most famous of all philosophical arguments that address the existence of a supernatural being who created the material universe. The supernatural being whom created the material universe is the logical core of what is commonly meant by the word God within the classic theistic religious traditions of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity with reasoning that constitutes a philosophical argument for the existence of God. Many cosmological questions on religion have intrigued human beings across all cultures since the beginning of recorded history and continue to interest us today. The Cosmological Argument is also known as the First Cause Proof that addresses that something must require a first cause to be brought into existence. Although many philosophers and people are skeptics of this theory based on the unbelief of God existence and logically thinking that God would need a cause to existence. The Cosmological Argument for the existence of God is not the strongest argument for religious groups to prove reason for the existence of God.

The Cosmological Argument have different forms that most commonly deal with two ideas that God is required as an explanation for the existence of the universe which is the First Cause also called the “Etiological Argument “or for the order in the universe(Stout, 2008). Usually when people think of a description of the First Cause argument they present Aristotle’s earlier argument of” Our present position, then, is this: We have argued that there always was motion and always will be motion throughout all time, and we have explained what is the first principle of this eternal motion: we have explained further which is the primary motion and which is the only motion that can be eternal: and we have pronounced the first movement or Prime Mover to be unmoved”( Mosser, 2011, sec. 4.1). Aristotle’s “Prime Mover” is an important premise behind cosmological arguments for the existence of a God. His basic idea was that everything that happens is caused by something else (Reichenbach, 2013). For example, if a patch of ice causes you to slip and fall, what caused the ice to form? Obviously a combination of excessive moisture in the air and cold temperatures but what caused the humidity? What caused the temperature drop? The questions can go on and on that everything that causes something is in turn caused by something else. We can trace this chain of causes back as far as we want, but Aristotle thought that eventually we reach a first cause that just was causing but itself uncaused this is Aristotle’s Prime Mover. Also St. Thomas Aquinas had a version of the Cosmological Argument called the Argument from Motion. He stated that” things in motion could not have brought themselves into motion but must be caused to move. There cannot be an infinite regression of movers. Therefore, there must be an Unmoved Mover. This Unmoved Mover is God”. Although there theories seem comprehendible it does not provide proof or evidence of God existence.

Aristotle began his arguments with the attempt to show that the ideas of Parmenides and Zeno were circular. Those two argued from the premise that whatever is simply is, yet Aristotle regarded this as a tautology because it ignores the fact that there are many different types of being and existence. The most common type of the cosmological argument, postulating God as a “First Cause” with claims as everything that exists or begins to exist has a cause, the universe exists and began to exist, the universe must have a cause, and the cause of the universe is God. It has been objected that the universe might be eternal, thus eliminating the need for a cause (Hartshorne,...

References: Hartshorne, C. (1948). The Rationalistic Criterion in Metaphysics. Philosophy and
Phenomenological Research
Himma, K. (2005). The application-conditions for design inferences: Why the design arguments
need the help of other arguments for God’s existence
Mosser, K. (2010). A concise introduction to philosophy. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint
Education, Inc.
Reichenbach, B. (2013). Cosmological Arguments, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Retrieved from
Slick, M. (2013). The Cosmological Argument.Christistian Apologetics & Research Ministry.
Retreived from
British Journal For The History Of Philosophy, p
Continue Reading

Please join StudyMode to read the full document

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Essay about Cosmological argument
  • Existence of God Arguments Essay
  • Outline the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God (21) Essay
  • Cosmological Argument Essay
  • Essay about Cosmological Argument
  • Explain the Teleological Arguments for the Existence of God Essay Example
  • Explain the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God (25 Marks) Essay Example
  • Assess the Cosmological Argument Essay

Become a StudyMode Member

Sign Up - It's Free