Success of Aquinas’s Cosmological Argument

Thomas Aquinas’s cosmological argument is a posteriori argument that Aquinas uses to prove the existence of God. Aquinas argues that, “Nothing can move itself, so whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this causal loop cannot go on to infinity, so if every object in motion had a mover, there must be a first mover which is the unmoved mover, called God.” (Aquinas, Question 2, Article 3). I do agree with Aquinas’s cosmological argument in proving the existence of God with several reasons. According to the cosmological argument, first of all, Aquinas claims that, “it is impossible that a thing should be both mover and moved, namely it should not move itself.” (Aquinas, Question 2, Article 3) This part of the argument is obviously correct. To say that a thing is potentially hot is to say that it is not yet hot, but it might be made to be hot by an efficient cause that is a thing actually hot. It is not possible that a thing should be in actuality and potentiality in the same respect. Therefore, it is evident that everything needs a mover to put it into motion. Secondly, Aquinas concludes that common sense observation tells us that no object can create itself. In other words, some previous object creates it, but there cannot be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist. Aquinas believes that ultimately there must have been an uncaused first cause that begins the chain of existence for all things. I quite assent to the idea that there must have a first unmoved mover to put the universe into motion. As we all know, everything has a beginning and an end, so as to the universe. That “Prime Mover” must exist to start the motion of the universe. Moreover, most supporters of the cosmological argument say that the universe could only have come into existence if it was caused by an unmoved cause. The unmoved mover is a philosophical concept described by Aristotle before Aquinas as the first