Cosmological arguments

• The Kalam argument


  P1- whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning

  P2- the universe began to exist

  C1- therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning

  P3- the must have to following attributes

  1. uncaused because an infinite series of causes is impossible
  2. outside of time and space because it caused all time and space
  3. hugely powerful because it created all matter and energy

  C2- therefore, God exists
• Aquinas' 1st way- from motion


  P1- the universe contains motion

  P2- nothing can change itself- it must be changed by something distinct from it

  P3- if there were an infinite series of changes caused by changes, there would be no first changer

  P4- if there were no first changer there could not be any change

  C1- therefore there must be a first changer

  P5- God is this first changer

  C2- therefore God exists
• Aquinas' 2nd way- from sustaining causation 


  P1- the universe contains sustaining causes and their effects which can be ordered

  P2- nothing can be the sustaining cause of itself, it must sustained by something distinct from itself

  P3- if there were an infinite series of sustaining causes there would be no first sustaining cause

  P4- if there were no first sustaining cause there could not be any other causes/effects- since if you remove the cause you cannot have the effect

  C1- therefore there must be a first sustaining cause

  P5- god is this first sustaining cause

  C2- so god exists
• Aquinas' 3rd way- from contingency


  P1- if everything were contingent then there would be a time when nothing existed

  P2- if this were so, then nothing would exist now

  P3- but things do exist now

  C- therefore not everything is contingent- there must be something that exists necessarily

  P4- every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another or not

  P5- an infinite regression of necessary causes is impossible

  C- therefore, there must be one necessary being whose necessity was not caused by another, and this is all people call god
• Leibniz's argument- from the principle of sufficient reason


  P1- all contingent events/things need a sufficient reason for why they exist

  P2- if they exist as they do because of other events/things then this would not be a sufficient explanation because the infinite series is still itself contingent

  C1- therefore, there must, ultimately, be a sufficient reason for the contingent series

  C2- therefore a necessary substance/being exists- this is God
• Descartes' argument


  P1- I exist as a being with an idea of a supremely perfect being in my mind

  P2- I cannot be the cause of myself as I would then be God and I know I am not

  P3- no other beings could be the cause because they could not account for the idea of God that I have in my mind

  P4- I cannot have no cause, as a cause is needed to sustain anything finite from one moment to the next

  C- the only possible cause of my continued existence is a supremely perfect being