To what extent is the cosmological argument weak?
Although the cosmological argument is a strong argument for the theory that the universe it is a weak argument for the existence of the classical theological God. Thomas Aquinas was a very important man to the cosmological argument; it was him who came up with some of the strongest theories to support the argument. He came up with his five proofs which to him proved the cosmological argument to be true. One of his proof was the ‘cause’ proof, this goes as follows; nothing can change by itself therefore everything is caused and as Aquinas didn’t believe in infinite regress he said that there couldn’t be a series of infinite causes. So there must be a first cause, a cause that isn’t itself caused by another, and Aquinas would say this is God. But if infinite regress was proved to be true or even possible it would completely undermine this argument and prove it invalid, this is the same case as many of the other theories of the cosmological argument. All expect the contingency theory, another argument by Thomas Aquinas. This argument states that everything in our universe is contingent (does not have to necessarily exist) so if everything was contingent then at some time there would have been nothing and therefore there would be nothing, but there clearly is, so therefore there must be something which isn’t contingent which everything else depends on, a necessary being, this is God. But even with Thomas Aquinas’ third proof which cannot be ruled out by infinite regress, the cosmological argument is still not convincing for the existence of God because, like all the other cosmological theories, they make a huge assumption at the conclusion that the answer to it all is God, yet there is no evidence to suggest why it would be God so I see no reason to accept this. Even Aquinas said that the cosmological argument could not prove that God exists; you had to have had faith as well with it. But...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document