Cosmological Argument Examples and Critiques

Examples Of Cosmological Argument
A cosmological argument is defined as "an argument for the existence of God which claims that all
things in nature depend on something else for their existence (i.e. are contingent), and that the whole
cosmos must therefore itself depend on a being which exists independently or necessarily." (Davies,
1982)This argument can be first traced back to Plato and Aristotle around 400BC – 300BC.
(Cornman, Lehrer, & Pappas, 1992)Thomas Aquinas adapted the argument of Aristotle to form one
of the most influential versions of the cosmological argument. His conception of First Cause was the
idea that the Universe must have been caused by something that was itself uncaused, which he
believed to be God. (Aquinas, 1274) He begins the argument with two objections...show more
content...
Firstly, the argument of motion states that whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, and
nothing cannot put itself in motion. This is a straightforward notion as it is evident to our senses
that things are in motion in the world "It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some
things are in motion." (Aquinas, 1274) For something to change into something else, it first must
have the potential to change into that something. Motion is actually the transformation of something
from potentiality to actuality. This can only be carried out by something that is already in actuality.
"But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of
actuality." Aquinas uses the example of hot and cold to demonstrate potentiality and actuality. If an
object becomes hot, it can only become hot by something that is already hot. The object has the
potential to become both hot and cold, but seeing as it has become hot, it does not have the power to
reduce itself to actuality – a hot object, because otherwise, it would simultaneously have the power
to become cold. Therefore, it must be a third party which reduces the object from potentiality to
actuality. We can agree that everything that is in motion is put in motion by something else. (Davies,
1982) "Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another." But where did this
Get more content on HelpWriting.net

The Cosmological Argument attempts to prove that God exists by showing that there cannot be an
infinite number of regressions of causes to things that exist. It states that there must be a final
uncaused–cause of all things. This uncaused–cause is asserted to be God.
Arguments like this are thought up to recognize why we and the universe exist. The Cosmological
Argument takes several forms but is basically represented below.
Cosmological Argument
Things exist
It is possible for those things not to exist Whatever has the possibility of non–existence, yet exists,
has been caused to exist. Something cannot bring itself into existence because it would have had to
exist to do...show more content...
Weaknesses of the argument
One of the weaknesses of the argument is that if all things need a cause to exist, then God Himself
must also, by definition, need a cause to exist. But this only pushes causation back and implies that
there must be an infinite number of causes, which cannot be. This is contradictory. Also, by
definition, God is uncaused.
There are two forms of the cosmological argument. One is the Kalam argument: Like all
cosmological arguments, the kalam cosmological argument is an argument from the existence of the
world or universe to the existence of God. The existence of the universe, such arguments claim,
stands in need of explanation. The only adequate explanation, the arguments suggest, is that God
created it.
What distinguishes the kalam cosmological argument from other forms of cosmological argument is
that it rests on the idea that the universe has a beginning in time. Modal forms of the cosmological
argument are consistent with the universe having an infinite past. With the kalam cosmological
argument, however, it is precisely because the universe is thought to have a beginning in time that
the existence of the universe is thought to stand in need of explanation.
The argument has the following structure:
(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause

Aquinas Cosmological Argument Essay
This argument about Aquinas's cosmological argument for the existence of god has been popular
and his using of logic on his argument is much like other scientists. Aquinas believed that we can
learn about our world and the important qualities of certain things in our world through making a
statement or just examining. He would do the same in which to examine the physical world around
him in order to gain his knowledge or understanding of the world. The word cosmological is used to
describe the reflection of sense data and instance of watching. I found that Aquinas used five
arguments about using ideas like, the first mover, first cause, sustainer, the cause of excellence, and
the source of harmony.
He gives us an extreme support and a...show more content...
I can support his other arguments by saying that if there is not a first cause then there cannot be an
intermediate and final cause. However, the absence of any such cause can clearly does not resemble
to our judgmental observation and from that, we can say that the result must have a stable cause. So
analyzing an extra further on Aquina argument, we can understand that there must be a cause for
everything. For instance, the existence of turning a phone on. This phone cannot cause it's
appearance to come out of nowhere. This phone cannot cause it to appear without having this phone
a creator by someone. In result, there is a phone creator who created the phone and cause it
existence, but the phone creator and the phone did not cause their existence. So we can say that
something caused their existence and this can build up to assume that everything in existence has a
first cause which finalizes to the start of all causes and all things.
After a analyze of everything in Aquinas argument about the existence ofGod, the understanding of
all causes made sense and supported with details that I put together and give it a better
understanding. As I was explaining another way in which I gave my truthful about what Aquinas
was trying to say for the existence god instead of an example throughout a philosophical way. The
reason why I gave a different perspective of the existence of God is that I can give a better
understanding on what Aquinas is trying to say. Also in that

The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God
The cosmological argument seeks to prove the existence of God by looking at the universe. It is an
A posteriori proof based on experience and the observation of the world not logic so the outcome is
probable or possible not definite. The argument is in three forms; motion, causation and being. These
are also the first three ways in the five ways presented by Aquinas through which he believed the
existence of God could be shown. Aquinas regarded Aristotle as the principal philosopher so many of
these concepts originate in the thinking of Aristotle.
One example of the cosmological argument is the argument of...show more content...
Therefore, it is more believable that the universe had a beginning and a personal creator.
The third of Aquinas' ways is the argument of contingency. The world consists of contingent items–
items that have a property are items referred to as 'being.' These items are generated and perish; they
have a beginning and an end. There must have once been a time when nothing existed. But then how
did these items come into being? There must be something or someone able to bring other items into
being without itself being brought into being. This necessary being is God.
These arguments are strong ones for the existence of God, built upon clear and apparently true
observations of the world around us. However, there are many criticisms. Hume argued that both
Thomas Aquinas and William Lane Craig contradict themselves by firstly denying the possibility of
the infinite, but then claiming that there must have been an infinite being. How can this be so?
Supporters of the argument could use the idea that God is unique and outside the laws of nature. But
even so, this point weakens the argument as there is no proof of the attributes of God.
Many may ask these questions: Why does the universe have to be caused? Why cannot it always
have been there? The human mind seems incapable of comprehending the idea of infinity, yet we
accept the idea of an immortal being. A

Descartes Cosmological Argument
Descartes' First Proof of the Existence of God tend to be variety of cosmological argument made
in meditation 3, where he is saying that if God did not exist than where did the idea of God come
from in our minds(Descartes, p.78).This idea of God has a greater type of reality than those of
other idea. This is kind of complex argument .For better understanding of this argument, he
classified reality into two classes. The "formal reality" which is the degree of reality that
something has and the "objective reality" that applies to ideas (Descartes, p.73&74). The ideas
have lowest degree of formal reality because ideas rely upon a thinker for existence, so that should
thinker not exist the idea would not have either. God, consider by Descartes

Examine the cosmological argument for the existence of God.
The cosmological argument is an a posteriori argument which intends to prove that there is an
intelligent being that exists; the being is distinct from the universe, explains the existence of the
universe, and is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent. The basic notion of
cosmological arguments is that the world and everything in it is dependent on something other than
itself for its existence. It explains that everything has a cause, that there must have been a first cause,
and that this first cause was itself uncaused.
Many philosophers have explored the cosmological argument, including Aquinas, in much depth,
through his Five Ways in the Summa Theologica....show more content...
Frederick Copleston was a priest, and historian of philosophy who supported Aquinas' rejection of
infinite regress. Copleston reformulated the argument by concentrating on contingency, which he
discussed in depth during a radio debate with Bertrand Russell in 1947. Copleston, like Aquinas,
argued that there are things in the universe which are contingent, for example, us – we would not
have existed if our parents had not met. All things in the world are similar to this, nothing in the
world is self–explanatory, and everything depends on something else for its existence. Therefore, we
are forced to search for an external explanation. The explanation must lead us to a cause which is
self explanatory, i.e. one which contains within itself, the reason for its own existence – a necessary
being. The conclusion must be God. Copleston argues that if we don't accept the existence of an
'unmoved mover', like Aquinas suggested, there is no explanation for the universe at all. Copleston
believes the universe is gratuitous without a first cause, because without an explanation, nothing has
meaning – "Everything is gratuitous. This garden, this city, and myself; when you suddenly realise
it, it makes you feel sick and everything begins to drift... that's nausea".
Leibniz, who wrote 'On the Ultimate Origination of Things', also supported the cosmological
argument; his argument is sometimes called the 'argument from

Aquinas Cosmological Argument Essay
Aquinas' Cosmological Argument is a method for proving God's existence and its foundation is
based on the fact and observation that the universe exists. Aquinas states that in order for the
universe to exist (an idea that we know to be true), there must also exist a cause that caused the
existence of the universe. He concludes his argument by saying that God, an unperceivable image, is
the cause of the universe, which further verifies His existence. This argument proves that in order to
accept the factual, former claim that the universe exists, it is necessary to accept the latter claim that
God exists as well.
Anselm's motto, "Faith Seeking Understanding," has to do with the search for a deeper knowledge
of God and asserts the idea that faith in Him comes before understanding God in His entirety.
Anselm claims that we don't have to understand God in order to have faith or belief in Him. Rather,
Anselm says that in order to understand God, we should first develop that faith and belief, which
ultimately allows us to comprehend God.
Henotheism...show more content...
Theology, on the other hand, obtains knowledge and truths based on both reason and on revealed
truth and faith. As a result, Aquinas saw philosophy as a subset of theology because theology deals
with both reason and revelation to obtain knowledge, while theology only uses reason. In a similar
light, Aquinas also believed that all theologians are philosophers, but he did not see all philosophers
as theologians. Consequently, Aquinas saw theology as superior to philosophy because of theology's
unlimited potential and means of acquiring truths/knowledge; in other words, theology encompasses
subjects that reason, or philosophical studies, cannot

St. Thomas Aquinas Cosmological Argument
St. Thomas Aquinas's first cosmological argument, the prime mover, defines things in the world as
being either in a state of potentiality or in a state of actuality. Those things that are in potentiality are
things that have the capability of being reduced to another form. Such as a boy is potentially a man,
or tree is potentially a house. Things that are in a state of actuality are things that are currently
reaching their potential; such as that boy becoming a man, or that tree becoming that house. Aquinas
observed that all things in a state of actuality had to have been put into that state by something that
was already in actuality. In thinking about this he concluded that there would have to be an infinite
regress of actual things making potential things actual. He concluded that this would be impossible
because given that, there would be no first mover. He instead, postulated that there must be a first
mover. A being that never had potential but only has existed in a state of infinite actuality. That
what we call God. The nature of God is not well described in the prime mover argument but certain
justifications can be made given the framework that has been provided. We can postulate first that
God is intelligent, second that God is all powerful, and third that God is all...show more content...
For what is in a state of actuality cannot cause something that is potential to reach a state of actuality
of greater power than its own. This would mean that God is the summation of all things that are
actual and potential in the universe. From this, we can observe that humans and their intellect are
reflections of God for our intellect would have to at one point been in a state of potentiality, and
Gods actuality (in this case his intelligence) would have to had set our potential intelligence into a
state of actuality. Therefore, God is

Based on the module reading and from my own experience, the existence of a god is unconfirmed
and doubtful. The ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments supporting the existence of
God do not provide empirical evidence that can be decisively attributed to a deity of any sort. The
ontological argument proposed by Anselm in which God can be proven to exist through reasoning
alone is flawed. Unlike the argument suggests, you cannot simply think something into existence by
ascribing that thing with the property of existence as Immanuel Kant pointed out. The cosmological
argument is more sound with a level of support by the observable world around us, but still contains
a fundamental flaw. The cosmological argument holds that nearly

The Strengths Of The Cosmological Argument
"Apologetics is the branch of Christianity that deals with the defense and establishment of the
Christian faith. Christian Apologetics is something every true believer should be involved in even if
it is only a little."
"But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who
asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence," (1 Peter
3:15).
Strengths of the argument
"The strengths of the Cosmological Argument lie in both its simplicity and easily comprehensible
concept that there cannot be an infinite number of causes to an event. Some arguments for God's
existence require more thought and training in terms and concepts, but this argument is basic and
straightforward. Also, it is perfectly logical to assert that objects do not bring themselves into
existence and must, therefore, have causes."
Weaknesses of the argument...show more content...
First, the Bible believer accepts the fact that Jesus died because several different biblical writers
confirm it. Second, the unbeliever accepts the idea, based not upon biblical evidence, but rather on
the idea that the natural order of things which he has experienced in this life is for a person to live
and eventually die. Once evidence sufficient to prove Christ's existence in history has been
established, the naturalist/empiricist has no trouble accepting His death. However, in order to
provide such people with a few more inches of common ground on this matter, it would be good to
note that several secular writers substantiated the fact that Jesus Christ did die. Tacitus, the ancient
Roman historian writing in approximately A.D. 115, documented Christ's physical demise when he
wrote concerning the Christians that "their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius' reign
by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilatus" (1952,

Cosmological Argument Analysis
"Worldviews serve as the necessary foundation and framework for our thoughts and actions. Our
worldviews are the single greatest influence on the way we interpret our experiences and respond
to those experiences" (Crossway, 2014). People might change their worldview due to changes in
their life, education, and so many other things. I believe the more we know the more we have
questions. Some people ignore their questions, they try to convince themselves by accepting a
specific worldview to make their life easy. I had never have such these kind of easy acceptance, there
were always a lot of questions about the philosophy of life for me. I have practiced so many
different ways to find my answers, and during my experiences, I realized that I am...show more
content...
As defined by philosopher Paul Draper, naturalism is "the hypothesis that the natural world is a
closed system" in the sense that "nothing that is not a part of the natural world affects it"(Keith
Augustine). Naturalists believe that nature is all exists, and non–natural things like God, spirit, and
should do not exist. I believe that there should be a supernatural power, and I do not think that life is
all physical persuasive. Although the growth of technology and science help human to investigated
the natural causes and find the reason for them, merely still there are so many unsolved problems
that scientists have not found answer for

Cosmological Argument From Motion
To begin, we start with an a posteriori argument, or an argument from experience. Arguments from
experiences of the world to the existence of God are called cosmological arguments. This particular
argument is the argument from motion. Argument from Motion: P1. Some things are moved. P2. If
something is moved to being F, then it is potentially but not actually F. P3. If something moves a
thing to be F, then it (the mover) is in a state of actuality relevant to F. C1. If something were to
move itself to be F (e.g., be both moved and its own mover), then it would be both potentially but
not actually F and also in a state of actuality relevant to F (conjunction, modus ponens, P1–3). P4.
But it is not possible for something to be both potentially...show more content...
I will leave it to con to find any objections to this argument; however, I will respond to one
preemptive problem that may seemingly arise. The issue comes from a seeming contradiction
between Newton's law of inertial motion, or Newton's first law of motion, and the Aristotelian
definition of motion on which the argument above rests. The problem may be resolved in two
ways. Firstly, to assert that there is a contradiction is to equivocate between two different
definitions of the word motion. Newton's account of motion is only concerned with local motion
(motion or change in terms of place or location), while the Aristotelian is concerned with change
of every sort (quality, quantity, substance, accident, etc.). Secondly, there is no formal
contradiction. As the Thomist philosopher Edward Feser says: "Suppose that "motion" is being
used in the two principles in the same sense. Even given this assumption, there is no formal
contradiction between them. Newton"s law tells us that a body will in fact continue its uniform
rectilinear motion if it is moving at all, as long as external forces do not prevent this. It does not
tell us why it will do so. In particular, it does not tell us one way or the other whether there is a
"mover" of some sort which ensures that an object obeys the First Law, and which is in that sense
responsible for its

Summary Of The Cosmological Argument
Following the rabbit example with one along a broader scale, if a theist believes that if a substance
cannot be produced by anything else, and an atheist would similarly agree, than that substance must
inhere in itself, or that, "...if everything is caused by itself or another than God must be a substance,
and as a substance, then His existence involves essence. Since God's essence exists, then so does
God." (Lin, 2007, p. 274) What if an atheist believed that the cosmological argument was unsound
because they were quite certain that God did not exist. Given their argument, they would in fact, by
rejecting God's existence, be acknowledging it based on a logical inference suggested by Kelly

The Cosmological Argument, also known as the First Cause Argument, is one of the most important
arguments for the existence of God, not only because it is one of the more convincing, but also
because it is one of the most used. The thought that everything that happens must have a cause and
that the first cause of everything must have been God, is widespread. The cosmological argument is
the argument from the existence of the world or universe to the existence of a being that brought it
into and keeps it in existence. The idea that the universe has an infinite past, stretching back in time
into infinity is both philosophically and scientifically problematic. All indications are that there is a
...show more content...
But it is not that simple. I would not be here without billions of causes, from the Big Bang through
the cooling of the galaxies and the evolution of the protein molecule to the marriages of my
ancestors. The universe is a vast and complex chain of causes. But does the universe as a whole
have a cause? Is there a first cause, an uncaused cause, and a transcendent cause of the whole chain
of causes? If so, then there is an eternal, necessary, independent, self–explanatory being with nothing
above it, before it, or supporting it. It would have to explain itself as well as everything else, for if
it needed something else as its explanation, its reason, its cause, then it would not be the first and
uncaused cause. Such a being would have to be God, of course. If we can prove there is such a
first cause, we will have proved there is a God. If, on the one hand, God were thought to have a
cause of his existence, then positing the existence of God in order to explain the existence of the
universe wouldn't get us anywhere. Without God there would be one entity the existence of which
we could not explain, namely the universe; with God there would be one entity the existence of
which we could not explain, namely God. Positing the existence of God, then, would introduce as
many problems as it solved, and so the cosmological argument would leave us in no

Cosmological Argument Essay
According to the cosmological argument, the universe must have had an original cause, and this
original cause seems to only point to one factor, God. God is an omnipotent, omniscient, all–loving
being; whatever future is in store for humans, I believe, is not left up to Him, but up to us. I believe
that God simply guides us through our lives and we have the will to decide how we live it. The
problem of evil questions the existence of God based on the evidence that if God is all powerful, all
knowing, and all loving, then surely he would help us in times of evil. However, this should not
mean to say that all evil is immorally wrong. In fact, some good can be born out of a dark situation.
God does exist and is all powerful, all knowing, and...show more content...
There is no evidence of God being nonexistent, but according to Pascal's Wager nothing is lost if
one chooses to believe in God. According to the Bible, God will love someone even if they don't
believe in him and love him in return and he cannot force himself upon others free will to increase
belief in him. Moral and natural evil should not determine Gods existence because God uses natural
evil and suffering to shape the future and humanity. If one chooses to believe in God, even though
they may be suffering now they become able to ignore the stinging of pain can look forward to the
time where things will become better for

Aristotle's Cosmological Argument
When it comes to discussing the cosmological argument, I question myself why are most
arguments that are for defending a higher being, in a monotheism perspective: the belief of one
God. I argue that yes there is an existence of a higher being, but I also argue that there is more than
one God; one God for each universe. I believe that there is a God for each universe, because there is
more than one universe, therefore I argue towards the multiverse argument with a concentration of
polytheism.
When trying to embrace the concept of the naturalism argument: that the universe can be explained
through scientific means, the argument is flawed in the sense that everything in the universe in
dependent on something else; the answer of where everything originated from cannot be answered.
Our whole lives through elementary, middle and high school also secondary education, we've been
told that everything comes from an atom, but where does the atom come from? Can science also
explain where dark matter comes from? I lean towards Aristotle's explanation of moved movers for
arguing that there is a higher being: a God who created the universe. In Aristotle's explanation of
moved movers, he argues that...show more content...
Just because there's no solid answer, other than philosophical and some scientific explanation, it does
not mean that one should automatically assume that nothing created the universe and the universe
doesn't have a purpose; there's further evidence of other universes and how our universe came to
be, which I'll explain more in detail as this paper lengthens. The no boundary theory believes that
our universe is like a vacuum and that it came from nothing. When things in space fall into a black
hole, I don't believe they just disappear. I personally believe that they get sucked into another
universe and the results end up

Critique Of Cosmological Argument Essay
Paul Edward wrote an article, A Critique of Cosmological Argument which emphasizes his critics on
Aquinas' Five Ways. He argues on the argument of the existence of First Cause– a member which is
not itself caused by any prior members claimed by Thomas Aquinas. Paul argues that even the
argument is strong and sound, it doesn't proves the existence of God; people can perceives it as the
existence of super–powerful being. If finite being exist in the form of infinite being. We as human
logically demands that infinite being to be rational, omnipotent, immaterial and eternal because that's
how God is defined – a Necessary Being. Edwards also does not acknowledge the argument
regarding to an infinite series. To suppose that there is infinite series of...show more content...
It is not reliant after expelling a connection from the causal series or arrangement; rather, the
arrangement itself is not clarified without anyone else and can't be on the grounds that it is not
the pith thereof to exist. For example, if you asking me for an eraser, and I do not have the effect
of having an eraser, thus it is not satisfied. No matter how many people and questions has been
asked, there will be never be an eraser, unless someone has it. Take this example and replace it with
presence or existence. "In a sense, I received existence from my dad, and he from his dad, from his
dad, from his dad, etc. But this cannot go to infinity, else the present effect of your existence would
not occur. Edwards fraudulently contends Aquinas is taking ceaselessly the set to demonstrate God.
That is not the situation by any stretch of the imagination. On the off chance that we have an
unbounded arrangement of presence, it is either self–brought about, uncaused or it originated from
nothing. On the off chance that self–created, it would need to exist ontologically before itself to
bring itself into presence which is a level

Argument On Cosmological Argument
Cosmological arguments are one of the oldest types of arguments for the existence of god beginning
in the world of the ancient Greek philosophers such as Plato................... These types of arguments
can be a priori or a posterori. Many great philosophers since have tackled this argument. Many theists
have used this the cosmological argument to justify their beliefs in God some include Aquinas,
Leibniz, Swinburne or Spinoza while many famous atheists challenge this view such as Hume, Kant,
Russell.
In this essay I will focus on and evaluate the opinions of William Craig in regards to the
cosmological argument. Craig begins his cosmological argument with the theory that infinity is
impossible in practice. This idea of the impossibility of an infinite regress was famously first
argued? BY...show more content...
This theory is compatible with both atheists and theist's theories
Arguments for this being stems from the fact that if there was such an intelligent being it must have
actively made a choice Hume and Kant have written major objections to this theory. Hume argues
Modern interpretations of this theory due to the effect of the advancements in physics
Proved the beginning big bang highly probable like Aquinas theorised there is a first cause. Atheist
can no longer justify arguing the universe is as eternal and uncaused as the idea of god like Bertrand
Russell thought.
Smith vs Craig The theists seem to be stated obvious facts widely accepted arguments that appeal to
both sides and work with both arguments for example the arguments from sufficient reason works
for the atheists the big bang being the most up to date explanation
Oscillating model of universe infinity possible and incompatible with the first cause argument
Hume impossible for universe to begin without a

Summary Of The Cosmological Argument
In critiquing the article written by William Lane Craig title "The Cosmological Argument" let me
first define how some define the cosmological argument. In reading about the cosmological argument
it is basically an argument that begins with the existence of the universe and tries to prove God's
existence. Thomas Aquinas said it this way, (1) "everything in theuniverse is moved by something
else. Unless we can go back in time forever, with things being constantly moved by something else,
there must be a point where movement started." (Godwin) Aquinas goes on to say, "there must be a
Prime mover that began movement in the Universe, when there was nothing, and this is God."
(Godwin) In the bible, it states, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Now the
earth was formless and empty,...show more content...
The author also supports his beliefs with the Kalam Cosmological Argument. He states, "Whatever
began to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist therefore, the universe has a cause." (Copan &
Meister) In the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson, "shallow men believe in luck or in circumstance.
Strong men believe in cause and effect." In support of the cosmological argument, the author states,
to suggest that things just pop into being uncaused out of nothing is to quit doing serious metaphysics
and resort to magic." In reading the material, the author highlights how God in all of his wisdom
and power set the earth in perfect motion in such a way that the laws are perfectly balanced not
only for human life but for coexistence of plants and animals and all living organisms. Furthermore,
if not for the right combination of laws then life as we know it would be

AquinasвЂ™ Cosmological Arguments Essay
Aquinas' Cosmological Arguments
The Cosmological Argument for the existence of God, as propounded by Thomas Aquinas, is also
known as the Third Way. It is the Third of Five ways in Aquinas's masterpiece, "The Summa" (The
Five Ways). The five ways are: the unmoved mover, the uncaused causer, possibility and necessity,
goodness, truth and nobility and the last way the teleological.
The first three 'ways' are different variations of the cosmological argument.
The Cosmological argument is developed around a distinction between that which has necessary
existence and that, which is contingent. A thing that has necessary existence must exist in all
possible worlds, whereas a thing that is...show more content...
Aquinas seems to presuppose the first of these two claims without argument. The argument for the
second appears to be this:
1. An object can change from not having property G to having G only if the object is potentially G
but not actually G. 2. The cause of an object's becoming G must itself actually be G. 3. Therefore, a
thing cannot cause itself to acquire a property.
He believed everything that is in motion (change) is moved (changed) by something else.
Infinite regress is impossible. Therefore there must be a first mover (changer).
His emphasis was on dependency; Christian theology has always taught that God sustains the
universe. In other words, if God ceased to exist then the universe would also cease. Therefore there
must be and an initiator of the change whose continued existence is depended upon. For example a
play depends on the continued existence of actors. This type of casual relationship is what Aquinas
had in mind.
Overall the first cause argument is:
a) Everything has a cause
b) Therefore the universe (cosmos) has a cause
c) That cause is God
d) Therefore God exists.
For this to follow Aquinas has to exclude the possibility of infinite regression; i.e. events with their

previous causes going back in time forever).

Cosmological Argument Examples and Critiques

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Papers Writing Service

More from Papers Writing Service (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Cosmological Argument Examples and Critiques