Cosmological argument

• Inductive: What has happened in the past will continue to happen 
• A posteriori: After evidence
• Synthetic: Something is true based on evidence 
• The cosmological argument is an inductive, a posteriori and synthetic (PIS) argument. It was first developed by Aquinas in his book Summa Theologica and uses the universe or cosmos as evidence for the existence of God.  
• St Thomas Aquinas was a 13th century theologian and came up with 5 ways to prove God’s existence (the first three being the cosmological argument)...
• FIRST WAY: Argument from motion 

  1. Everything is in constant motion from actuality to potentiality  
  2. Every change has a cause 
  3. The universe must have a first cause 
  4. A causal change must have a starting point – infinite regression is illogical 
  5. Unmoved mover 
• SECOND WAY: Argument from causation 

  1. Everything has a cause  
  2. If there is no first cause, nothing would exist 
  3. Uncaused causer 
• THIRD WAY: Argument from contingency 

  1. Everything is contingent on something 
  2. Something cannot come from nothing  
  3. Something must be there 
  4. Uncreated being  
• Aquinas was heavily influenced by Aristotle
• Other forms of the cosmological argument: All Children Must Kick Leibniz
• The Kalam Cosmological Argument: 

  1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause  
  2. The universe began to exist 
  3. The universe has a cause  
  4. God is the cause 
• Mackie: God is like the engine of a train 
• Leibniz’s Principle of sufficient reason: 

  • Infinite regression is illogical 
  • Never have sufficient explanation for existence of universe 
  • Had to be a first cause 
  • Uncaused and not contingent  
  • God is sufficient reason 
  • Can only see sufficient reason of universe outside of universe and only thing that is outside of universe is God 
• Criticisms of the cosmological argument: His Royal Highness Lock & Hobbes
• Hume 

  • ARGUMENT FROM CAUSATION 
  • We do not know if the universe has a cause, and we only perceive cause and effect.  
  • E.g. If someone sees a magpie whilst driving home, they might wrongly interpret that that magpie caused the consequential car crash. 
  • Because we know the causes within the universe, we do not need to explain the cause of universe as a whole. This is called fallacy of composition. 
• Hume 

  • ARGUMENT FROM CONTIGENCY 
  • God could also be contingent and so could have been a time where he didn’t exist. 
• Hume 

  • The world is imperfect and finite therefore the creator of the World must be imperfect and finite.  
  • All Aquinas proved is that one thing makes the universe but that does not have to be God, or it could prove polytheism. 
  • Infinite regression is not illogical. 
  • We cannot compare human cause and effect with the whole universe as it may abide by different rules. 
• Russel says “Universe is a brute fact” and so has no cause  

  There can be infinite regression - “Why do we need an explanation for the whole when we have an explanation for the individual?” 
• Hawkins argues that the universe has created itself. 
• Lock and Hobbes argues that it tells us nothing about the Christian God apart from he is a creator. The nature of God is missing.