Cosmological Arguemt

• Cosmological Argument


  Attempts to infer the existence of God from the existence of the cosmos or from phenomena within it
• The universe cannot account for its own existence and so this argument seeks causes that have their solution in the existence of a God
• The Cosmological Argument has a long history
• Proponents of the Cosmological Argument

  • Plato
  • Aristotle
  • Aquinas
  • Descartes
  • Leibniz
  • Craig
  • Swinburne
• Opponents of the Cosmological Argument

  • Hume
  • Kant
• Thomism


  The philosophy of Aquinas
• Aquinas devoted only two pages to his arguments for the existence of God in Summa Theologica
• Aquinas' Five Ways


  • The Unmoved Mover
  • The Uncaused Causer
  • Possibility and Necessity
  • Goodness, Truth and Nobility
  • Teleological
• The Unmoved Mover


  1. We can observe that things in the world are in a process of motion

  2. Everything that is in motion is in the process of changing from a potential state to an actual state

  3. The same thing cannot be at the same time potentially and actually the same thing

  4. Everything that is in a state of motion must be moved by another thing

  5. The chain of movers cannot go on to infinity

  6. Conclusion: It is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God
• The Uncaused Causer


  1. Nothing can be its own efficient cause

  2. Efficient causes follow in order: a first cause causes a second, a second a third and so on

  3. It is not possible for efficient causes to go back to infinity

  4. Conclusion: It is necessary to admit a first efficient cause to which everyone gives the name of God
• Aquinas was not arguing that the universe necessarily had a beginning, but rather that the universe is dependent on God for its continued existence
• Aquinas' arguments rely on the concept of infinite regression, which he rejected as impossible
• The first cause sees God as a factual necessity, as the causal explanation of the universe, while the ontological argument sees God as a logically necessary being
• Aquinas was concerned with why there is any motion or causation at all and why there continues to be motion and causation, not just the beginning of a chain of events
• It is possible to think of an endless series of numbers, which suggests that infinite regressions are possible, contrary to Aquinas' argument
• David Hume criticised Aquinas' arguments
• The universe is 15 billion years old. Scientists have discovered a lot about its origins and development. However, that does not explain why there is and continues to be a universe.
• In mathematics it is possible to think of an endless series of numbers, such as: … –3,– 2,–1,0,1,2,3 …
• This series of positive and negative numbers could continue for ever which means that infinite regressions are possible.
• If God is considered to be the explanation of why there is something rather than nothing

  Then if someone supported infinite regressions it is perfectly logical for them to ask who caused God
• If there was a time when every contingent being did not exist


  Then nothing would come to exist
• It is quite possible for all contingent things at different points in time to not exist and later exist. However, this does not mean that at some time nothing existed.
• David Hume questioned the assumption employed by Aquinas as to whether every event has a cause.
• Hume said that people simply assume that this is the case, but that it cannot actually be proved.
• Cause


  Something which brings about an effect or result
• People can make assumptions about cause and effect which can be completely wrong.
• Hume's argument


  We assume that cause follows effect, because our minds habitually see causes and automatically link effects to them. Hume argued that just because there is an explanation for every event in a series there may not necessarily be a cause for the whole series. We simply consider that every event must have a cause as that is the way we make sense of things.
• Hume concluded that we expect all future experiences to somehow conform to past experiences, and this reinforces our belief that A causes B. We see 'uniformity of nature' because our minds work that way, and we simply think that A and b must be connected.
• However, according to Hume we cannot always assume that every effect has a cause. If Hume is correct, this is a serious criticism of Aquinas' first two ways. For Hume it is not certain that the beginning of existence has a cause and so the argument for a first cause fails.
• David Hume also considered whether it is necessary for the whole universe to have a cause just because everything that is within the universe was caused by something.
• According to Hume there is no reason why God is the first cause as the first cause could simply be the universe itself.
• This idea fits in with what we now know about the world as it evolved from primordial matter and so effectively actualises itself, and so it is completely possible that there was no cause of the universe, or that it had always existed and so had no beginning.
• According to the fallacy of composition, just because contingent things in the universe have a cause it is not possible to simply conclude that the universe has a cause.
• In spite of Hume's ideas on the links between cause and effect, people do generally believe that effects have a cause.
• Anscombe (1974) criticised Hume's argument by pointing out that you could conclude that 'existence must have a cause' without believing or knowing that 'such particular effects must have such particular causes'.
• Anscombe also suggested that even if it is possible to imagine something coming into existence without a cause this tells you nothing about what is possible in reality.