Cosmological Argument For The Existence Of God
At some point in our lives people have thought that there is more to life than the material world, which surrounds us. For centuries, a belief in a God or Gods has been an ongoing debate. As humans, we have a natural instinct to find explanations for events that cannot be explained. I, like many others look for something transcendent on which to build our lives upon. There are numerous arguments presented to prove the existence of God, however the most convincing of those ways begins from the fact of the existence of the world. These types of arguments are known as “cosmological” arguments. The cosmological argument is that of the existence of the universe is strong indication for the existence of a God who created it. In this essay, I will
…show more content…
show that the attestation of God’s existence that the cosmological theory presents leaves little room to deny a conception of God.
The term “cosmological” is “based on the fact of the cosmos” (Cottingham, 2014, p.348).
It has to do with cosmology, which is an extension of metaphysics that consists with the Universe as an orderly system. St. Thomas Aquinas first introduces the Cosmological argument in the Summa Theologica, where he discusses topics such as; the existence, simplicity, and will of God. St. Thomas challenges us to consider what it is about nature that makes it manifest to require God as its original cause. For Aquinas, proving the existence of God is based on asking how, and to what extent can we know God—reason and observation. His passions included the scientific reasoning of God. Studying many philosopher’s theories it is evident that their arguments are driven from two very different disciplines; epistemology and …show more content…
ontology.
It is apparent the world exists, however the world cannot explain its own existence, therefore something else must account for it. In the event that we are not able to develop an explanation for an existence than within itself it must be the cause of its own existence. Such an uncaused being is God and St. Thomas develops five lines of argument for God’s existence. It is the third argument from contingency that strengthens and assists in logically defending this statement. There are things in this world that have a beginning and an ending and are therefore capable of either being or not being. Aquinas recognizes these things to be contingent, but are not necessary. Based on time and change, contingency can be proved. Everything existing will inevitably undergo change, and since everything that is contingent must be caused by something else, an omnipresent being must have had a cause, too. However, if this cause is located, then that would also have to be contingent on a cause and this was convincing strength of Aquinas’ argument.
Since nothing could cause itself, none could exists without there being a non-contingent being. God contains its own cause within itself making it different from other beings. I quickly realized that because it is a necessary being, it must exist. Aquinas’ epistemological reasoning proves the existence of non-contingency purely because contingency beings exist. The basis of this argument is from the principle of causality. Science, for example, is altogether based upon the principle that every material effect has an adequate cause (Thompson, 1955, p. 334). Men and women have both tried to explain the existence of the universe and have not succeeded. Everything in nature changes and Samuel M. Thompson defends the causal principle by saying that “...if causation does not really happen, then change is not real and the world of nature does not exist” (1955, p. 330).
Furthermore, the distinction made between existence and essence is another important aspect of the cosmological argument. The essence and existence in God are identical making Him a necessary being. It is in God’s nature to exist, as he gives existence to His creatures, but it is not self-existent like His. Otherwise, He would create an impossibility—a non-contingent contingent (Thompson, 1955, pp. 345-346). Explaining this further, take for example the essence of a man. A man’s essence is basically his characteristics, all the properties that make him a man. However, what is not included is existence. A man who cannot exist can still be perceived; resulting in the fact that the attributes that makes one a man does not make him exist. Breaking down the arguments and being convinced that it concludes with existence of a necessary being, I will now focus on a couple of the objections offered.
To begin with, David Hume reasons that we have no idea how the universe is made and it is simply not possible to argue from causes within the universe to causes of the universe as a whole. Hume’s proposed challenges to the construction of the cosmological argument candidly questions the validity of the assumption that existent things need causes or reasons for their existence. He essentially argues the room for infinite regress. David strongly believes the fallacy composition, which Bertrand Russell later reiterates, that just because every man has a mother, it doesn’t mean that there is a mother of the human race (Thompson, 1955, pp. 350). Hume also argues against the cosmological argument on a priori grounds. He formulates Aquinas’ debate in a way that combines causal and reason. Through this idea, he considers the universe to be a closed system, which rules out any external causation. Any a priori argument is absurd to Hume as the existence of God is not possible from fixed necessary premises.
Experience showcases that everything in the universe is contingent or has a cause to it.
The universe is a result of something or someone and as such cannot be self-explanatory. The argument that Aquinas tries to make is that, everything does not need to have a cause, yet every effect must have a cause. God, as the first cause, is not an effect at all, nor can He be. Therefore, the argument for infinite regress is based on an extremely weak supposition that everything needs to have a cause. Furthermore, believing that St. Thomas’ argument is primarily a priori is another problem with Hume’s criticism. The cosmological argument is based on synthetic a posteriori knowledge, which he should accept as
valid.
Carrying on, Immanuel Kant disputes that the cosmological argument is dependent upon the ontological argument. Kant believes that this dependency eliminates the cosmological argument as an independent proof. Although, he agrees that it proves the existence of a necessary being, he claims that it would not be possible without the ontological argument to show the properties of that being is God (Runyan, 1963, pp. 56-58). Kant was certain that, since the ontological argument can be shown to fail, the same can be done to the cosmological argument, as he perceives the latter to be dependent. Additionally, Kant felt that the idea of a ‘necessary being’ is incoherent. Immanuel supposes that if necessary existence were possible then there would be a possible nature that contains existence as one of its essential characteristics, basically making existence a property.
With Kant’s urgings there are numerous things wrong. Firstly, he divides the cosmological argument into two parts when in fact it is only one. The first part, which Kant agrees with, is the cosmological argument, automatically making his claims untrue. Hans Reichenbach, a German Philosopher of Science said, “Kant’s first part is the cosmological argument proper, and establishes its claims without the second part; the additional reasoning required to show the necessary being’s characteristics are not part of the argument itself.” (Reichenbach, pp. 142-143). The argument Aquinas presents is to attempt to show that necessary existence is actual and it is from this that we are able t infer that it must be possible. In Summa Theologica, Aquinas admits that we cannot, by examining the idea of necessary existence, or the idea of a being whose existence and essence are identical, establish to ourselves that such a being is possible. This revelation is why he suggests that tracing the series of causes back to their primeval limit, we will be required to assume that such a being exists.
Moreover, the notion of necessary existence is different than the idea of a being whose nature or essence includes existence. A being exists necessarily if it is impossible for that being not to exist (Reichenbach, pp. 144). Consequently, you can accept a necessarily existent being, without either premise of the ontological argument proving the cosmological argument to be stronger with even less room to disagree with a conception of God.
Bringing it all together, although the cosmological argument is not without flaws, it provides strong sufficient evidence for the existence of the omnipresent. Aquinas’ presentation of cosmological argument is based upon a strong foundation of dealing with the existence of real things, rather than mere concepts. It is important to state, that as a believer of God his existence is not a result of the cosmological argument, yet the argument is a result of his existence. Denying the conception of God would require people to be present everywhere and to know all thing, simply impossible. If in fact there was a being with such powers then they have the ability to be called a God.
show that the attestation of God’s existence that the cosmological theory presents leaves little room to deny a conception of God.
The term “cosmological” is “based on the fact of the cosmos” (Cottingham, 2014, p.348).
It has to do with cosmology, which is an extension of metaphysics that consists with the Universe as an orderly system. St. Thomas Aquinas first introduces the Cosmological argument in the Summa Theologica, where he discusses topics such as; the existence, simplicity, and will of God. St. Thomas challenges us to consider what it is about nature that makes it manifest to require God as its original cause. For Aquinas, proving the existence of God is based on asking how, and to what extent can we know God—reason and observation. His passions included the scientific reasoning of God. Studying many philosopher’s theories it is evident that their arguments are driven from two very different disciplines; epistemology and …show more content…
ontology.
It is apparent the world exists, however the world cannot explain its own existence, therefore something else must account for it. In the event that we are not able to develop an explanation for an existence than within itself it must be the cause of its own existence. Such an uncaused being is God and St. Thomas develops five lines of argument for God’s existence. It is the third argument from contingency that strengthens and assists in logically defending this statement. There are things in this world that have a beginning and an ending and are therefore capable of either being or not being. Aquinas recognizes these things to be contingent, but are not necessary. Based on time and change, contingency can be proved. Everything existing will inevitably undergo change, and since everything that is contingent must be caused by something else, an omnipresent being must have had a cause, too. However, if this cause is located, then that would also have to be contingent on a cause and this was convincing strength of Aquinas’ argument.
Since nothing could cause itself, none could exists without there being a non-contingent being. God contains its own cause within itself making it different from other beings. I quickly realized that because it is a necessary being, it must exist. Aquinas’ epistemological reasoning proves the existence of non-contingency purely because contingency beings exist. The basis of this argument is from the principle of causality. Science, for example, is altogether based upon the principle that every material effect has an adequate cause (Thompson, 1955, p. 334). Men and women have both tried to explain the existence of the universe and have not succeeded. Everything in nature changes and Samuel M. Thompson defends the causal principle by saying that “...if causation does not really happen, then change is not real and the world of nature does not exist” (1955, p. 330).
Furthermore, the distinction made between existence and essence is another important aspect of the cosmological argument. The essence and existence in God are identical making Him a necessary being. It is in God’s nature to exist, as he gives existence to His creatures, but it is not self-existent like His. Otherwise, He would create an impossibility—a non-contingent contingent (Thompson, 1955, pp. 345-346). Explaining this further, take for example the essence of a man. A man’s essence is basically his characteristics, all the properties that make him a man. However, what is not included is existence. A man who cannot exist can still be perceived; resulting in the fact that the attributes that makes one a man does not make him exist. Breaking down the arguments and being convinced that it concludes with existence of a necessary being, I will now focus on a couple of the objections offered.
To begin with, David Hume reasons that we have no idea how the universe is made and it is simply not possible to argue from causes within the universe to causes of the universe as a whole. Hume’s proposed challenges to the construction of the cosmological argument candidly questions the validity of the assumption that existent things need causes or reasons for their existence. He essentially argues the room for infinite regress. David strongly believes the fallacy composition, which Bertrand Russell later reiterates, that just because every man has a mother, it doesn’t mean that there is a mother of the human race (Thompson, 1955, pp. 350). Hume also argues against the cosmological argument on a priori grounds. He formulates Aquinas’ debate in a way that combines causal and reason. Through this idea, he considers the universe to be a closed system, which rules out any external causation. Any a priori argument is absurd to Hume as the existence of God is not possible from fixed necessary premises.
Experience showcases that everything in the universe is contingent or has a cause to it.
The universe is a result of something or someone and as such cannot be self-explanatory. The argument that Aquinas tries to make is that, everything does not need to have a cause, yet every effect must have a cause. God, as the first cause, is not an effect at all, nor can He be. Therefore, the argument for infinite regress is based on an extremely weak supposition that everything needs to have a cause. Furthermore, believing that St. Thomas’ argument is primarily a priori is another problem with Hume’s criticism. The cosmological argument is based on synthetic a posteriori knowledge, which he should accept as
valid.
Carrying on, Immanuel Kant disputes that the cosmological argument is dependent upon the ontological argument. Kant believes that this dependency eliminates the cosmological argument as an independent proof. Although, he agrees that it proves the existence of a necessary being, he claims that it would not be possible without the ontological argument to show the properties of that being is God (Runyan, 1963, pp. 56-58). Kant was certain that, since the ontological argument can be shown to fail, the same can be done to the cosmological argument, as he perceives the latter to be dependent. Additionally, Kant felt that the idea of a ‘necessary being’ is incoherent. Immanuel supposes that if necessary existence were possible then there would be a possible nature that contains existence as one of its essential characteristics, basically making existence a property.
With Kant’s urgings there are numerous things wrong. Firstly, he divides the cosmological argument into two parts when in fact it is only one. The first part, which Kant agrees with, is the cosmological argument, automatically making his claims untrue. Hans Reichenbach, a German Philosopher of Science said, “Kant’s first part is the cosmological argument proper, and establishes its claims without the second part; the additional reasoning required to show the necessary being’s characteristics are not part of the argument itself.” (Reichenbach, pp. 142-143). The argument Aquinas presents is to attempt to show that necessary existence is actual and it is from this that we are able t infer that it must be possible. In Summa Theologica, Aquinas admits that we cannot, by examining the idea of necessary existence, or the idea of a being whose existence and essence are identical, establish to ourselves that such a being is possible. This revelation is why he suggests that tracing the series of causes back to their primeval limit, we will be required to assume that such a being exists.
Moreover, the notion of necessary existence is different than the idea of a being whose nature or essence includes existence. A being exists necessarily if it is impossible for that being not to exist (Reichenbach, pp. 144). Consequently, you can accept a necessarily existent being, without either premise of the ontological argument proving the cosmological argument to be stronger with even less room to disagree with a conception of God.
Bringing it all together, although the cosmological argument is not without flaws, it provides strong sufficient evidence for the existence of the omnipresent. Aquinas’ presentation of cosmological argument is based upon a strong foundation of dealing with the existence of real things, rather than mere concepts. It is important to state, that as a believer of God his existence is not a result of the cosmological argument, yet the argument is a result of his existence. Denying the conception of God would require people to be present everywhere and to know all thing, simply impossible. If in fact there was a being with such powers then they have the ability to be called a God.