Cosmological Argument Essay
There are many different arguments which attempt to help us understand more about the existence of God. One of these arguments is the Cosmological Argument which is essentially a theory which consists of 8 main points, but this essay will highlight the origins of the argument, the developments by Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas and some criticisms by David Hume and Immanuel Kant and coming to a conclusion of how successfully the Cosmological Argument proves the existence of God.
The first form of the Cosmological Argument was thought of by Plato. "Shall we say then that it is the soul which controls heaven and earth" - Plato. Though this quote does not directly speak about the first cause, nevertheless it does highlight Plato's thinking …show more content…
that what created the universe was non-material. He argues this by implicating that the universes cause has a soul which suggests that Plato's idea of the Cosmological Argument was that the universe was initiated by a living entity which he believed to be God. Plato's main idea was that the universe was not created by a soulless chemical reaction as is widely believed by many today. This strengthens the Cosmological Argument to prove the existence of God as they try to establish that the creation of the universe has a cause that is not dependent on any material impact but in fact has an independent separate entity within itself.
A development of Plato's theories was enhanced by Aristotle. "The series must start with something, since nothing can come from nothing." - Aristotle. He believed that nothing can come from nothing, therefore if there was never a first cause then nothing would exist and that all changes track back to some form of ultimate source, thus Aristotle is clearly setting out an argument that there must have been an independent first cause. So, everything that has ever happened since the beginning of time has been part of one huge chain reaction. This is a very basic form of the Cosmological Argument which can be explained by the domino analogy. “Consider 100 dominos set up in line so that as one domino falls, it strikes the next one, which falls and strikes the next, and so on. If we push the first domino, we start a finite chain of causes and effects that ends when domino number 100 falls.” – Consider.org. One cause causing another cause and so on. However, in order for the first domino to fall, there must be an external force applied to it. This analogy sets out a good example of the Cosmological Argument which Plato and Aristotle attempt to set out in their theories. This contributes to the strengthening of the Cosmological Argument proving the existence of God.
Aquinas attempts to improve and develop the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God. He argued for the idea of a necessary creator in his version of the argument. Aquinas' eight step argument goes as follows; things exist because of a cause, these things do not have to exist but they do, the chain of causes goes back to the beginning of time, time began when the universe was created, there must have been a first cause which is responsible for everything else in the universe, the first cause must have a necessary existence, only god has necessary existence, therefore God is the first cause of the universe's existence. He believed that there is no such thing as an infinite sequence of moves, therefore nothing can move itself and there must have been a "first mover" to begin everything which Aquinas believed to be God. The importance of this is that Aquinas clearly sets out that there is a separate independent entity which has no cause therefore is separate from all other forces and influences within time and space. In fact, this entity would need to be outside time and space, highlighting the presentation of the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God yet again this element of Aquinas' argument appears to further strengthen the Cosmological Argument for the first cause and the existence of God.
However the Cosmological Argument that attempts to prove the existence of God is debated to have a major flaw to the entire theory.
The flaw is highlighted in the following quote. "if God doesn’t have a cause, he doesn’t exist and therefore couldn’t have created the universe" - flowpsychology.com. This source explains that the argument states that God is the cause of the universe and that everything needs a cause in order to exist but later goes on to reveal that God does not have a cause due to him having a "necessary existence" which, if in accordance with the previous steps of Aquinas' arguments, would mean he never existed in the first place. The Cosmological Argument also does not explain why God is the only exception in the entire universe. This is a counterexample to everything that the argument declares beforehand. This can be viewed as where the argument for the existence of God falls short of being watertight. ‘if nothing exists without a cause and God has no cause, then God cannot exist’ which effectively is the complete opposite of what the argument attempts to achieve and inconsistency will only weaken our faith in the argument, therefore this perspective attacks the very essence of the Cosmological Argument whereby God is an independent cause of all sequencing causes. This leaves the Cosmological Argument floundering at the very Genesis of its entire
argument.
Another disadvantage to the Cosmological Argument as a proof of the existence of God could be that we simply are just humans and cannot be expected to understand these things. Scottish philosopher David Hume stated that we have no experience of universes being made. This shows that one of the biggest flaws with the Cosmological Argument is that we are not Gods and have never created anything as large or as complex as an entire universe. Hume also maintained that just because we know that everything has a cause does not mean that we can assume that the universe in its entirety is a result of something else. This continues his idea of humans being incapable of understanding issues of such a large scale and that we are wasting our time trying to do so, therefore we should just assume that the universe simply exists because it exists. This theory is very well thought out, as there is no tangible evidence that there is a single entity which created the universe. “A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence” – David Hume. The quote shows that Hume would be not at all convinced with the Cosmological Argument unless solid evidence of a creator were to be placed before him. This ‘believe it when I see it’ attitude towards the Cosmological Argument pokes a major hole in the theory as a proof for the existence of God.
Another noteworthy viewpoint which goes against the idea that the Cosmological Argument proves the existence of God is that of Immanuel Kant who believed that the idea that everything requires a cause is true but it can only be applied to “the world of sense experience”. This means that we may use our laws of physics to provide answers for tangible things in our universe that we have experienced but anything beyond the confinements of human reach would just be guessing and assuming that outside the universe the human laws of physics apply which, in Kant's opinion, is ridiculous. There are many unexplained mysteries surrounding God and the universe and this theory states that the chain of causality is a concept created by humans, and is perhaps not applicable to inexperienced, unproven things as there is simply know way to know for sure of the existence of our laws of physics beyond our universe. Again, this can be seen as a major blow to the Cosmological Argument as a proof for God, as it also emphasises the lack of evidence and knowledge in our possession. Although Kant was religious, his position was that the Cosmological Argument was severely flawed due to the fact that our human laws of physics are limited they can only be applied to our experience. This point strengthens the argument against the Cosmological Argument being solid proof of the existence of god because the laws of physics are limited to our laws of space and time and we cannot know for certain that god does exist.
However, from a religious point of view, it could be argued that there is evidence of God existing before the beginning of the universe in order to start it. "we declare Gods wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began." 1 Corinthians 2:7 (Biblegateway.com). This scripture states that God was around before time began, therefore before anything else had time to exist in. This means that you could say that God is the only possible answer to starting the universe as nothing else would've existed as there was no such thing as time for something else to exist within. To this, a Christian might say the universe exists but before the universe there was nothing so the only other possible explanation would be a divine entity which proves the existence of God.
Taking all strengths into consideration (the logical chain of causes, Thomas Aquinas presenting 8 well thought out steps and the scriptures which suggest Gods being the only answer to what created the universe) the Cosmological Argument provides a very impressive theory which attempts to prove the existence of God. However, there are a few weaknesses such as the major contradiction without explanation, David Hume's theory on our lack of understanding of time and space which prevents us from being able to comprehend the argument and our limit of understanding being bound to human experience. It goes without saying that many different theories exist which surround the Cosmological Argument, many of which are strengths which help prove the existence of God and many of which are weaknesses which attempt to disprove the existence of God, but due to the lack of evidence, we may need to wait for science and philosophy to progress in order for us to be provided with a definite answer.
The first form of the Cosmological Argument was thought of by Plato. "Shall we say then that it is the soul which controls heaven and earth" - Plato. Though this quote does not directly speak about the first cause, nevertheless it does highlight Plato's thinking …show more content…
that what created the universe was non-material. He argues this by implicating that the universes cause has a soul which suggests that Plato's idea of the Cosmological Argument was that the universe was initiated by a living entity which he believed to be God. Plato's main idea was that the universe was not created by a soulless chemical reaction as is widely believed by many today. This strengthens the Cosmological Argument to prove the existence of God as they try to establish that the creation of the universe has a cause that is not dependent on any material impact but in fact has an independent separate entity within itself.
A development of Plato's theories was enhanced by Aristotle. "The series must start with something, since nothing can come from nothing." - Aristotle. He believed that nothing can come from nothing, therefore if there was never a first cause then nothing would exist and that all changes track back to some form of ultimate source, thus Aristotle is clearly setting out an argument that there must have been an independent first cause. So, everything that has ever happened since the beginning of time has been part of one huge chain reaction. This is a very basic form of the Cosmological Argument which can be explained by the domino analogy. “Consider 100 dominos set up in line so that as one domino falls, it strikes the next one, which falls and strikes the next, and so on. If we push the first domino, we start a finite chain of causes and effects that ends when domino number 100 falls.” – Consider.org. One cause causing another cause and so on. However, in order for the first domino to fall, there must be an external force applied to it. This analogy sets out a good example of the Cosmological Argument which Plato and Aristotle attempt to set out in their theories. This contributes to the strengthening of the Cosmological Argument proving the existence of God.
Aquinas attempts to improve and develop the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God. He argued for the idea of a necessary creator in his version of the argument. Aquinas' eight step argument goes as follows; things exist because of a cause, these things do not have to exist but they do, the chain of causes goes back to the beginning of time, time began when the universe was created, there must have been a first cause which is responsible for everything else in the universe, the first cause must have a necessary existence, only god has necessary existence, therefore God is the first cause of the universe's existence. He believed that there is no such thing as an infinite sequence of moves, therefore nothing can move itself and there must have been a "first mover" to begin everything which Aquinas believed to be God. The importance of this is that Aquinas clearly sets out that there is a separate independent entity which has no cause therefore is separate from all other forces and influences within time and space. In fact, this entity would need to be outside time and space, highlighting the presentation of the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God yet again this element of Aquinas' argument appears to further strengthen the Cosmological Argument for the first cause and the existence of God.
However the Cosmological Argument that attempts to prove the existence of God is debated to have a major flaw to the entire theory.
The flaw is highlighted in the following quote. "if God doesn’t have a cause, he doesn’t exist and therefore couldn’t have created the universe" - flowpsychology.com. This source explains that the argument states that God is the cause of the universe and that everything needs a cause in order to exist but later goes on to reveal that God does not have a cause due to him having a "necessary existence" which, if in accordance with the previous steps of Aquinas' arguments, would mean he never existed in the first place. The Cosmological Argument also does not explain why God is the only exception in the entire universe. This is a counterexample to everything that the argument declares beforehand. This can be viewed as where the argument for the existence of God falls short of being watertight. ‘if nothing exists without a cause and God has no cause, then God cannot exist’ which effectively is the complete opposite of what the argument attempts to achieve and inconsistency will only weaken our faith in the argument, therefore this perspective attacks the very essence of the Cosmological Argument whereby God is an independent cause of all sequencing causes. This leaves the Cosmological Argument floundering at the very Genesis of its entire
argument.
Another disadvantage to the Cosmological Argument as a proof of the existence of God could be that we simply are just humans and cannot be expected to understand these things. Scottish philosopher David Hume stated that we have no experience of universes being made. This shows that one of the biggest flaws with the Cosmological Argument is that we are not Gods and have never created anything as large or as complex as an entire universe. Hume also maintained that just because we know that everything has a cause does not mean that we can assume that the universe in its entirety is a result of something else. This continues his idea of humans being incapable of understanding issues of such a large scale and that we are wasting our time trying to do so, therefore we should just assume that the universe simply exists because it exists. This theory is very well thought out, as there is no tangible evidence that there is a single entity which created the universe. “A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence” – David Hume. The quote shows that Hume would be not at all convinced with the Cosmological Argument unless solid evidence of a creator were to be placed before him. This ‘believe it when I see it’ attitude towards the Cosmological Argument pokes a major hole in the theory as a proof for the existence of God.
Another noteworthy viewpoint which goes against the idea that the Cosmological Argument proves the existence of God is that of Immanuel Kant who believed that the idea that everything requires a cause is true but it can only be applied to “the world of sense experience”. This means that we may use our laws of physics to provide answers for tangible things in our universe that we have experienced but anything beyond the confinements of human reach would just be guessing and assuming that outside the universe the human laws of physics apply which, in Kant's opinion, is ridiculous. There are many unexplained mysteries surrounding God and the universe and this theory states that the chain of causality is a concept created by humans, and is perhaps not applicable to inexperienced, unproven things as there is simply know way to know for sure of the existence of our laws of physics beyond our universe. Again, this can be seen as a major blow to the Cosmological Argument as a proof for God, as it also emphasises the lack of evidence and knowledge in our possession. Although Kant was religious, his position was that the Cosmological Argument was severely flawed due to the fact that our human laws of physics are limited they can only be applied to our experience. This point strengthens the argument against the Cosmological Argument being solid proof of the existence of god because the laws of physics are limited to our laws of space and time and we cannot know for certain that god does exist.
However, from a religious point of view, it could be argued that there is evidence of God existing before the beginning of the universe in order to start it. "we declare Gods wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began." 1 Corinthians 2:7 (Biblegateway.com). This scripture states that God was around before time began, therefore before anything else had time to exist in. This means that you could say that God is the only possible answer to starting the universe as nothing else would've existed as there was no such thing as time for something else to exist within. To this, a Christian might say the universe exists but before the universe there was nothing so the only other possible explanation would be a divine entity which proves the existence of God.
Taking all strengths into consideration (the logical chain of causes, Thomas Aquinas presenting 8 well thought out steps and the scriptures which suggest Gods being the only answer to what created the universe) the Cosmological Argument provides a very impressive theory which attempts to prove the existence of God. However, there are a few weaknesses such as the major contradiction without explanation, David Hume's theory on our lack of understanding of time and space which prevents us from being able to comprehend the argument and our limit of understanding being bound to human experience. It goes without saying that many different theories exist which surround the Cosmological Argument, many of which are strengths which help prove the existence of God and many of which are weaknesses which attempt to disprove the existence of God, but due to the lack of evidence, we may need to wait for science and philosophy to progress in order for us to be provided with a definite answer.