Cosmological argument

• Cosmological argument

  • Heart of the argument is the notion that everything we experience in the world is contingent
  • Generally, a posterior argument
• The ‘Kalam argument’

  1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
  2. the universe began to exist
  3. Therefore the universe has a cause
  4. if the universe has a cause of its existence, it must mean God
  5. Therefore God exists
• The Kalam argument is deductive argument. If p1-p4 are true, then p5 (C) must be true. The premise guarantees the conclusion. The argument argues that the existence of the universe means the existence of God.
• Strengths of the Kalam argument

  • Built on Aristotle’s belief
  • Logical
  • We can observe it
  • When couples with other arguments it’s stronger
• Weakness of Kalam argument

  • Suppose a cause comes without a cause? (How did the universe begin?)
  • Must be a cause, so what is the first cause?
  • No proof God is the first cause
  • Infinite regress
• 5 things about the cosmological argument

  1. in favour of the existence of god
  2. a posteriori argument, which means it’s based on evidence for, the universe
  3. ”why is there something rather than nothing?”


  4. Based on the causation (the laws of cause and effort

  5. There must be a first cause
• Aquinas

  • Source of evidence: ‘Summa Theologia’
  • Did not accept the statement that ’God exists’
  • Came up with 5 ways to demonstrate God exists
  • first 3 are the cosmological argument
• Aquinas

  1. The first and second ways are casual arguments which seek to explain motion and causation and how these are dependent on a higher power
  2. The third way is based on contingency of the universe, this seeks to prove that it is dependant on God
• Aquinas: First cause, motion

  P1: There are some things in motion or a state of things

  P2: Nothing can change by itself, everything has a secondary mover

  P3: If everything has a second mover; there would be an infinite regress of movers

  P4: [Reductio ad absurdum] of P3 is true, then there would be no prime mover and therefore no secondary mover, but this is false

  C: Therefore, there must be a unmoved prime mover, God.
• Aquinas: Second way, causation

  P1: Every event has a cause

  P2: Nothing can be the cause of itself

  P3: If we imagine that this order of cause goes back infinitely then there would be no first cause.

  P4: If this were true then there would be no causes at all, but this is false

  Therefore, there must be a first cause; God
• Aquinas: Third way, Contingency

  P1: In nature, everything can either exist or not exist

  P2: Given infinite time, eventually everything will not exist

  P3: If there was once nothing, nothing could come from it

  P4: Therefore some thing or some things must necessarily exist

  P5: Everything necessary must be caused or uncaused

  P6: You can‘t have infinite series of necessary things causing each other, because, then there would be no explanation for the series itself. Therefore, there must be a being which has ‘It’s own necessary‘
• Laibinz

  Believed that we need to go outside the universe to find the explanation, to see if the universe has always existed because there’s nothing in the universe to prove or to show why it exists
• F.C Coplestone

  Supports Aquinas’ rejection of infinite regress on the grounds that an infinite chain of contingent beings could only ever consist of contingent beings, which would never be able to bring itself into existence.
• F.C Coplestone


  Reformulates the cosmological argument with the following:

  P1: Somethings that exist do not contain a reason for their existence

  P2: The world consists of the totality of such objects, one of which contain reason for their own existence

  P3: Meaning the explanation for the existence of everything in the universe must lie outside it

  C: This must be self explanatory, being that it contains reason for its own existance
• Swinburne

  Argues it is more likely there is something rather than nothing because even though the most natural state of affairs is nothing, there is something due to the odd electron
• Summary or Leibinz’s contribution

  • Why is there something rather than nothing
  • Explanation of the universe is God
  • Things that exist necessarily exist becaus it’s a necessity
  • Things that exist contingently because it’s not really needed
  • The only explanation for a bin contingent universe would not be needed
  • Existence of the universe is God
• Hume’s view on the Cosmological argument

  • Any being that exists can also not exist
  • There is no contradiction in thinking that any being does not exist
  • This is true of God also, because there is no contradiction in saying ‘God does not exist’
  • So when Aquinas’ 3 ways requires God to be a necessary being, this is therefore false logic
• Hume

  Now insists that all statements about existence are ‘synthetic’, based on experience, so they cannot not be real.

  • Hume and Russel both reject the claim that any being is necessary
  • Hume disagrees with Aquinas