Aquinas Cosmological Argument Analysis

Aquinas Cosmological Argument Analysis
In the Cosmological argument, we are presented with a very sound argument. In this argument,
Aquinas is answering the question of why there has to be a first cause and why the first cause is
God. He tells us that everything that exist in this universe needs an explanation for why it exist.
Secondly, Aquinas tells us that all the objects that exist now were caused to exist by other objects
before them and this cycle goes on. Thirdly, he tells us the universe couldn't possibly be something
that goes on infinitely. Aquinas thinks there has to be something that caused this– a first cause.
Lastly, Aquinas tells us the only possible thing that caused all of this is God. In this paper, I will be
defending Aquinas' Cosmological Argument. Aquinas' first premise is everything, every person,
plant, or object, that exist in this universe needs an explanation for why it exist. I believe there is a
logical reason for why everything exist and everything that happens has an explanation. For
example, we need water to survive. If we don't have water, we will eventually die of dehydration.
We need some of the smallest things in life. If we were to apply this premise to the universe, a
'small' thing many people don't ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
If we were to apply this to the universe, a good example of this would be human beings. Human
beings seem to be in a cyclical process. This process consist of being born, living your life, having
children, and dying. Every human being is born to a set of parents. Every human being from birth
until death lives their live. Many people settle down and have children. Other people adopt or don't
have children. And hopefully after living a long, well–lived life, we die. Human beings that are born
in this world were caused to exist by their parents. Their parents were caused to exist in the world
because of their parents. This cycle seems to go on
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Kalam Cosmological Argument
Among various theories supporting the existence of God, cosmological arguments are strongest.
This concept suggests that the existence of the universe has reason (Davies 48). Cosmological
arguments consider how the universe came into existence. The kalam cosmological argument
supports the theory that the universe could not have commenced by itself (Davies 49).
Design arguments are weakest when asserting that the existence of God is attributable to
characteristics displayed by the universe. Aquinas concluded that objects without knowledge cannot
have goals unless a higher power is directing them (Davies 76). Davies uses an example of acorns
consistently growing into oak trees to support this statement (76). However, David Hume suggests
that "order in the universe could easily be the result of chance" (Davies 79). ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
Design arguments are less persuasive, because the regularity we experience in the universe could be
due to chance (Davies 79).
There are some weak points in cosmological arguments, however. One major weakness is that there
is no way to prove the existence of the universe has a cause. For example, David Hume believes that
if we are capable of imagining a universe without cause, then it is possible that the universe could
have begun without reason (Davies 50). Another argument states that the universe is infinite, and if
that is the case, then every event has a predecessor. This would mean that there was no beginning of
the universe (Davies 53).
There are few strengths in design arguments with the exception of having an explanation for the
mundane occurrences of life. While I find design arguments intriguing, I cannot believe that
inanimate objects receive instruction from a godly entity. Cosmological arguments are more
plausible, as it is not difficult to accept the theory that the universe came into existence because of

The Cosmological Argument: The Reliability Of Scripture
When arguing the reliability of Scripture, there two key factors that stand out from the rest. The
cosmological argument explains that the world had to start somewhere based on cause and effect
(Lewis Sperry Chafer) and the empirical evidence of the fulfillment of prophecy (p. 4) timeline the
Septuagint and Dead Sea scrolls provide, there should be little doubt in validity of the authentic
writings in the Bible.
First, from the Bibliology article, Lewis Sperry Chafer (1957) explained, "The cosmological
argument depends upon the validity of three contributing truths: (a) that every effect must have a
cause; (b) that the effect is dependent upon its cause for its existence; and (c) that nature cannot
produce itself" (p. 10). Scientist argue

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 on Helpwriting.net ...
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

Aquinas’ 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 on Helpwriting.net ...
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).

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 on Helpwriting.net ...
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

Explain Aquinas' Cosmological Argument
Explain Aquinas' Cosmological Argument
The basis of the cosmological argument is that the universe cannot account for its own existence.
There must be a reason, the argument says, for the existence of the universe and the reason has to be
something which is not part of the physical world of time and space. The cosmological argument
was used by Thomas Aquinas (1225–74) in his five ways, which were ways of demonstrating the
existence of God through inductive argument based on observation and evidence.
In Aquinas' view, knowledge of God could be reached in two ways; one through revelation for
example, through the words of the Bible and the other is through our own human reason. Aquinas
thought that if we applied reason to the evidence that ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
It would have to be a being which is not cause and which depends on nothing else to continue to
exist and this would be

Cosmological Argument: The Law Of Thermodynamics
The Cosmological Argument:
a. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
Pretty self–explanatory...
b. The universe began to exist.
Modern science supports that the universe had a beginning. For example, the second law of
thermodynamics helps us figure out that the universe is running out of energy (hence heading
towards a heat death). In an eternal universe, it would have run out of energy by now. So since this
hasn't happened, we know that the Universe had a beginning. Also, there is the discovery of red–
shift in 1929. Basically, this discovery showed us that the universe is expanding which means if you
were to go back in time, the universe would shrink and shrink until you get this infinite point.
William Lane Craig ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
It is interesting to note that we always try to make excuses for violating the moral law. But if there
was no objective moral law, then we would not feel the need to apologize to people when we hurt
them. For example, if I were to say some harsh words to a family member of mine, I might try to
offer them excuses like "I was hungry."
However, if morality was subjective, and there was no right/wrong, we wouldn't feel the need to to
say sorry whenever we did something "wrong". In fact, lets say that I owed a person money. I
wouldn't have any moral reason to pay them back. The person I owed money to merely would have
a different opinion of what morality was than me. And since there would be no objective moral
standard, I would be perfectly justified in not paying him back.
But this is all ridiculous since we all are aware of the same objective moral law. And that is why we
make excuses for violating it and that is the reason why we just know when someone wrongs us.
c. All people really do know that a standard of right/wrong

Cosmological Argument For The Existence Of God
The cosmological argument for the existence of God is based on causation and the world having a
beginning. It holds that everything that exists has a cause and there must have been an initial cause.
The argument attempts to prove the existence of God by making an inference from the world. It
starts from the reality that things exist and then follows that there is a cause for the existence of
these things. It acknowledges that something caused the universe to exist and some thing is
currently keeping it existing.
This argument provides that since everything that begins to exist must have a cause, there must be
an explanation to the beginning of the world. It tries to show that the universe did not create itself
and is not sustaining itself, but was created and is being sustained by God. The concept of causation
provides that everything that has a beginning must have a cause. Because the universe exists, it must
have started to exist at some point and must have a cause. The argument rests on the grounds that
the first cause must rely on nothing to exist, must be powerful enough to create something from
nothing, must have the will to create and must exist outside the universe it creates. The ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This is because the first cause is timeless and the first act of the First cause was to create the
universe. The objection that it is impossible for anything to exist before time fails because
considering a moment before time began is illogical. Exempting God from the requirement of a
cause in order to begin to exist does not violate the premise of everything existing having a
beginning because God did not start to exist because He was the First. In addition, the argument
provides a distinction between the entities of God and that of the universe. The universe does not
have the same characteristics as God and therefore cannot be

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, ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
They believe that it is possible to trace back through the causal chain infinitely. They think that non–
existence of infinite causal chain is just dependent on our common sense or experience, but common
sense does not always present the truth. Nevertheless, Aquinas points out the relationship among
first, intermediate and ultimate causes and argues, "In the world of sense, there is an order of
efficient causes, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of
the ultimate cause." (Aquinas, Question 2, Article 3). So there is a transmission among causes, and
Aquinas claims, "If it is possible to go on infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will
there be an ultimate nor intermediate causes." (Aquinas, Question 2, Article 3). But taking away the
cause is to take away the effect, so we cannot break the connection among causes. As a result, I
think although human being has limited knowledge and experience, Aquinas uses the rational
demonstration to prove that the causal chain must have a beginning rather than infinity. All in all,
Aquinas's cosmological argument really convinces me. He provides enough evidences to prove his
ideas about causation among objects, the finite chain of causal loop, and first unmoved mover who
is God. I consider the cosmological argument is a good demonstration to prove the

Pros And Cons Of The Cosmological Argument
The Cosmological Argument has several forms, but is essentially a proof for the existence of the
God of classical theism. It investigates to respond to the human wonder for answers to questions
like "who created the universe?" It is an a posteriori argument, meaning that it is based on our
experience of the world around us. The argument has been around for many years, but it was St.
Thomas Aquinas in his book 'Summa Theologica' who established the argument as we know it
today. Aquinas had five proofs for the existence of God, of which three are cosmological; they are
the First Cause Argument, the Prime Mover Argument and the Argument from Contingency. The
First Cause Argument is troubled with the idea that all things have a cause and if we trace back the
chain of causes, there must be an original cause which began everything else. People take this 'cause
without a cause' to be God. In a similar way the Prime Mover Argument declares that everything has
to be moved by something and then a chain of movement is constructed up with each items
movement resting on the movement of the item before it. Since the Cosmological Argument rejects
infinity, this chain of movement must have been started by something, because it is by our own
experience that all things ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
It rejects the idea of an infinite universe because as time is always being added on, time cannot be
infinite. This argument was also discovered in the western world by William L. Craig, who revised
it to some extent. The argument states that if the universe was infinite then all of time would exist
simultaneously. A good example of this idea would be Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel, which
was introduced by David Hilbert and it proved that a fully occupied hotel with infinitely many
rooms may still accommodate additional guests, even infinitely many of them and that this process
may be repeated infinitely

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
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

Is The Cosmological Argument Commonsensical?
SWA4: Is the cosmological argument commonsensical?
Samuel Clarke and Baron D'Holbach have very different views when it comes to an infinite being.
D'Holbach is an atheist who says that believing in a good is not reasonable or innate. Further, he
says religion makes people give their attention to something they can never comprehend or
experience. Clarke on the other hand believe that there has to have been a being that has exited in all
of eternity without a cause a being that just exist because of absolute necessity. Clarkes
cosmological argument is commonsensical because what he says in the beginning is that nothing
comes from nothing and also what he says about the infinite being and that it is infinite and existing
without a cause. It is commonsensical because throughout the world except there is many religions
where this argument to some extent is a widely held belief. ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
In this he is basically asserting that it is common sense. The statement does sound like common
sense because it is very vague and it is something that could be widely believed, that something has
existed all eternity because when you think about it, it makes a lot of sense. Afterwards, he says that
something that has really existed from the eternity is one of the most certain and evident truths in
the world acknowledged by all men and disputed by no one. His statements are commonsensical
because they are something that is sort of obvious from what we know

Cosmological Argument
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 on Helpwriting.net ...
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

Argument Vs Cosmological Argument
When looking back of how all of the arguments in philosophy started we must at least be willing to
admit the universe had to come from somewhere. The Cosmological argument would be one that
most of the universe will agree with, the existence that God did had some part in the universe. We
all do not have to agree on the amount of input that God has had, we just know that he did have
some part in it. The other problem is that no one is actually saying there is a true existence of God.
Anything that exists needs to have a cause. There will always be nay Sayers that will put an
argument to everything that has anything to do with the beginning of time. Through reading and
beliefs there will always be a theory argument. If we are looking for the ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
This will lead the believer of any side of the argument to state that the creation is indeed a fact. The
evidence will be shown by the belief of evolution and not lack any of evidence shown in the
argument of evolution. By believing in the creation the theory of creation as on that at some point
has by an intelligent design.
We have learned that not everyone is going to be a believer of the beginning of time. We do need to
understand we may not have to agree with the fact that the inference of the existence of God comes
from the existence of the universe. The first argument will be when they attempt to infer that God
must exist as the first or ultimate cause of the universe. We will have to side with the temporal
argument that the universe has had to have a beginning or a first moment of existence. We also have
to be able to admit that God is involved and continues to be involved in his

Essay on The Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God
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 on Helpwriting.net ...
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

The Cosmological Argument For The Existence Of God
Introduction Atheists often insist there is no evidence for the existence of God while maintaining
religious faith is fundamentally irrational. This paper will examine the Kalām Cosmological
Argument (KCA), demonstrating that it offers strong evidence for the existence of God, thereby
providing a rational foundation for the Christian faith.
Background
The cosmological argument is, "a family of arguments that seek to demonstrate the existence of a
Sufficient Reason or First Cause of the existence of the cosmos." Historians trace an early version of
the cosmological argument to Ibn Sīnā (c. 980–1037), and philosophers commonly differentiate
argument variations into three basic categories. The first, the KCA, seeks to establish the First ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Common experience and empirical evidence continually verify the causal principle, and falsification
has not occurred. These considerations lead Dr. Craig to conclude, "It is somewhat unwise to argue
in favor of it [the first premise], for any proof of the principle is likely to be less obvious than the
principle itself, and, as Aristotle remarked, one ought not to try to prove the obvious via the less
obvious." Although it appears irrational to deny the first premise, some scholars have challenged the
causal principle on philosophical grounds. Deriving arguments from David Hume, philosophers
(such as J.L. Mackie) have sought to refute the first premise by contending there is no reason to
believe the causal principle is a priori true. Contrary to their assertion, the principle of causation
appears to be a synthetic a priori proposition, as it is a universal and necessary feature of both
cognition and reality, providing the precondition of thought itself. Nonetheless, challenging the
causal principle because it is not a priori true does nothing to invalidate the premise since the
assertion does not indicate the premise is false, nor does it compel us to think the antithesis is
plausible–that something can truly originate from uncaused. Undeterred, such opponents further
maintain that an infinite chain of contingent events could provide a sufficient explanation for the
existence of the universe, even if it were void a

Aquinas Cosmological Argument
Aquinas was a Catholic priest who tried to prove the existence of God using his five cosmological
arguments. I disagree with the validity of these arguments. The arguments presented by Aquinas are
questionable and most certainly do not prove the existence of the Christian God. Aquinas states that
God's existence can be proved in five ways. The first way he tries to prove God is proof by motion.
He states that motion is a reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. It is impossible for
something to be in potentiality and actuality at the same time. It is obvious that some things in the
world are in motion. Whatever is moved is moved by something else, because nothing can be put
into actuality without being first in potentiality, and something in potentiality can only be put into ...
The arguments combined prove a being which is a prime mover, first cause, necessary being, root of
all perfection, and intelligent being. The arguments, however, do not prove the Christian God as
described by the Bible. First, the arguments do not prove that there is only one god. There could be
several gods and Aquinas' arguments do nothing to prove otherwise. Furthermore, a god could have
all of these attributes yet never have done anything that was described in the Bible. For example, I
can envision a god with all of these attributes who enjoys to eat cheese. I could even write a book
about such a god and the different types of cheese he eats. And, based on Aquinas' arguments, as my
god has all the qualities described by Aquinas, my god is equally as likely to exist as the Christian
God. There are infinitely many gods that can be envisioned which all have the attributes described
by Aquinas. Therefore, there is no way of proving, even if Aquinas' arguments are true, that the
Christian God described by the Bible

Chaffee's Cosmological Argument
Per Chaffee, the cosmological argument examines the "orderly, coherent, and intelligible nature of
the cosmos" and examines the proofs that are given by science and philosophers for God to have
designed the universe (Chaffee 338). He states that in the cosmological argument, the universe is
contingent or dependent on God to create it because upon examination of the universe, everything
owes its existence to something else; following this logic, for the universe to exist, there must be
something that the universe owes its existence to (338). Theists claim that this reason for the
universe to be in existence is divine creation by an almighty, eternal, God. Chaffee continues on to
state the cosmological theory provides the basis for its argument ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
That is, when Russell claimed that the cosmological theory was invalid because that it offers no
explanation as to the origin of God, I stated that it was a sweeping generalization fallacy. He does so
by not considering the exception of the creation of God. In Craig's dissertation, he alludes to an
"Uncaused First Cause" and expands upon this idea by stating that it "must transcend space and
time, since it created space and time" (Craig). This means that because God existed before the origin
of space and time, he is exempt from the rules of space and time and therefore, does neither need an
origin to exist, nor have one. He is eternal in every aspect, infinite in existence. The cosmological
argument thus provides us with the grounds to believe in the existence of a "beginningless,
uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, Personal Creator of the
Universe" (Craig). This explanation can point to none other than

The Ontological, Cosmological, And Design Argument
Throughout many centuries philosophers have argued over the existence of God. In today's society
many people tend to hesitate in believing in a God because of the new scientific discoveries. For
example, in the mid 1990s scientists built the Hubble telescope which revealed that there were
billions of galaxies in our universe, this discovery led some people to question how can one divine
being create so much and yet have a personal connection with everyone in the world. Which, in
result, may take some scientific explanation to strengthen one's belief in God, but for those who
believe there is a benevolent God they do not need science to show proof that he exists because of
their morals and beliefs they have been raised to follow. In this paper I will prove that God does
exist by explaining the ontological, cosmological, and design argument. The ontological argument
was an argument created by Saint Anselm. Anselm argued that if we thought about what God is and
what he can do then we know he must exist. What Anselm means by this is that if our minds can
think of something so great like God, we should realize that an all–powerful God must exist in
reality. Anselm states that God is, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." This quote
means if we can comprehend who God is, then there has to be a more powerful God than in our
minds, in reality because if God is such a perfect being, then this implies that he must be by
definition as well.
God is independent of the

Summary Of The Kalaam Cosmological Argument
In order to be able to understand what each of views about the Kalaam Cosmological are argument
are, one needs to first understand the basic version of the Kalaam Cosmological Argument. The
Kalaam Cosmological Argument is an argument for the existence of god, not necessarily the
Christian view of god, but the existence of a higher being, a creator of the universe. The simplified
version of The Kalaam Cosmological Argument is as follows: everything has a cause of existence,
the universe exists, and therefore, the universe has a cause. When writing about the second premise,
Craig adds 2.1, the impossibility of an actual infinite, and 2.2, the impossibility of forming an actual
infinite. The simplified argument of the Kalaam Cosmological Argument ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The Kalaam Cosmological Argument also brings up the question that if God began to exist at some
point, then what caused God to exist. The arguments that Allen and Sotnak present, that God's
knowledge is an actual infinite, therefore disproving Craig's argument, seem unable to be proven
because the actual infinite of God's knowledge, if it is actually infinite, cannot be proven or
disproven by humans. As humans can only experience what is on earth or in the universe, God's
knowledge is incomprehensible to humans. The possibility of an actual infinite is incomprehensible
because it is something that never has, and probably never will be on earth, experienced by humans.
Despite this, The Kalaam Cosmological Argument could still be a valid argument if the premises
were modified to something such as: 1. "Whatever Begins to exist has a cause of it's existence" 2.
"The Universe Began to Exist." 2.1 The argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite
occurring on this earth. 3. "Therefore, the universe has a cause of existence." This would allow the
Kalaam Cosmological Argument to still be logical, although it accounts for the responses from
Sotnak and Allen and also accounts

Cosmological Argument Research Paper
To what extent does The Cosmological Argument prove the existence of God?
There are many different arguments which attempt to help us understand more about the universe.
One of these arguments is the Cosmological Argument which is essentially an argument which
consists of 8 main arguments; 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 including 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. The argument basically puts across ...
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 the
Cosmological Argument pokes a major hole in the

The Cosmological Argument For The Existence Of God
The cosmological argument sets out to prove that the universe could only have been created by God
and that therefore he exists. In this regard, I believe that it fails and is not successful. The argument
is: Everything that exists has a cause. The universe must have a cause. That cause is God. There are
problems with all premises of this argument and I will use the works of Hume, amongst others to
attack the cosmological argument. Whilst the argument is strong and has strong arguments put
forward by numerous people, whom believe that the universe could only come into existence if it
were caused by an uncaused causer, it is not strong enough to totally avoid criticism. Aquinas stated
that everything must have a cause, nothing is its own cause, a chain of causes ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
He states that contingent things cannot furnish the universe throughout its infinite existence so there
must be a point in time where contingent things all cease to exist at once. In which case, we would
expect to see nothing now, but this is plainly false as there are currently an abundance of contingent
things. Therefore there must be a necessary being that guarantees the continuing existence of
contingent beings and causes them. This must be God. John Mackie thinks it is fallacious to jump
from 'everything at some time does not exist' to 'at some time everything does not exist'. It is
certainly plausible to believe that there is in infinite series of contingent overlapping things in the
universe so there is no need for a necessary being.
Aquinas is making a clear connection between the argument from contingency and the argument
from causation, so some of the criticisms still apply. Aquinas is relying on reduction ad absurdium
to prove that infinite regress is impossible but Aquinas may not understand what infinite regress is.
Certainly, a finite series would need to come to an end with an unmoved mover but an infinite series
would just never reach an

The Cosmological Argument: A Truth Of Reason
The Cosmological Argument is best described as follows. In order to prove the existence of some
god or higher power, there must have been an original cause for everything we know today to come
into existence. A better way to think about the Cosmological Argument is to imagine yourself as you
are now. Now think about how you came to be, how your parents came to be, how their parents
came to be, how the human race came to be, and how our planet and the cosmos came to be. All of
these instances have individual causes that all stemmed from the first cause (God).
c. The Cosmological Argument itself appeals greatly to a Truth of Reason. A Truth of Reason is a
belief that can be explicitly proven through reason and intuition. The statement that there was a first
cause can be justified by using a Truth of Reason. Everything that happens in the world has a cause,
and that cause has a cause and so forth. By using this logical reasoning, you can deduce that there
must have been a first cause (God). ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The Two Worlds Assumption assumes that there are two worlds, the real world and the external
world. The real world is the world that we experience everyday while the external world can only be
experienced with our thoughts. This external world cannot be affected in any way. The Two Worlds
Assumption also introduces a major obstacle to knowledge; we can never be sure that we know the
world or that we even exist. This is because we often have experiences that we aren't sure are true,
such as dreams and hallucinations. What we are sure of, however, is our opinions, experiences, and
ideas but these may not be analog to how the world actually

The Cosmological Argument
The Cosmological Argument
An important argument to try and prove the existence of God is the Cosmological Argument brought
on by observations of the physical universe, made by Saint Thomas Aquinas, a thirteenth century
Christian philosopher. The cosmological argument is a result from the study of the cosmos; Aquinas
borrows ideas from Aristotle to make this systematically organized argument. Aquinas' first point
begins with the observation that everything is moving. Aquinas' says that everything that moves
must be moved by another moving thing, which has to be moved by another moving thing and so
on. This cannot be infinite though, because consequently the motion of the series would have no
origin, and the origin of this series cannot ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
But David Hume, a Scottish philosopher, objected to Aquinas second point by arguing that if each
individual link in the chain of causes and motions can be explained then there is no need for an
additional explanation for the whole of the chain. The explanation of each part is enough of an
explanation for the whole itself. But defenders say that the discovery of the Big Bang theory would
be the beginning of the causes and motions in the universe and is not infinite, so infinite regress
would not be possible.
A third objection to the cosmological argument as a whole is that Aquinas insists that everything has
a cause; if that is true, then what caused God? There being an uncaused cause would be a
contradiction to Aquinas whole argument that everything has a cause yet God has no cause. But
Aquinas defends his argument by saying that only everything in our universe has a cause because
everything in our universe is a limited, dependent being. That still would require an uncaused,
neither finite, nor dependent being unlike anything in our universe, God. Critics also object that the
cosmological argument does not prove a loving and personal God, but Aquinas would probably
respond by stating that this wouldn't prove his argument is wrong, only that it has a limited purpose.
I think between the two arguments, Cosmological and Ontological, the cosmological

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 on Helpwriting.net ...
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

Kalam Cosmological Argument Analysis
The Kalam Cosmological argument is considered one of the most powerful argument for Gods
existence. The syllogism goes like this, Whatever begins to exist has a cause; The universe began to
exist; Therefore: The universe has a cause. Being able to give a reason to why one believes
something should be the foundation of one's belief. "The universe either had a beginning or it is
eternal, there is no middle ground in the Kalam Cosmological argument" (Vitale 103). Many will try
and take premise one of the argument and say that in physics there is no such thing as "nothing."
Instead, skeptics will say that the universe doesn't need a creator because according to the laws of
quantum mechanics it can just come into existence from nothing. This "nothing"

The Cosmological Argument On The Existence Of God
Theories have arisen from many different philosophers trying to explain the existence of God; the
Cosmological Argument is one such theory. The Cosmological Argument has been changed and
reviewed for years; however, the focus has always stayed the same. The universe is a prime example
that there is a God. A simple Cosmological argument states that:
Everything that exists has a cause of its existence. The universe exists.
Therefore,
The universe has a cause of its existence. If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause
is God.
Therefore,
God exists (NA, 2008).
In my opinion, this argument has very basic and broad statements that may be difficult or impossible
to be proven false. "Everything that exists has a cause of its existence" and "The universe exists" are
two statements that can be difficult to prove incorrect. We know that nothing is made without a
reason behind it, and nothing is made without a process leading up to its creation. "The universe
exists" cannot be proven false without some very abstract thinking involved. We know that the
universe exists because you and I exist, everything around us exists, and the world on which we live
and the universe in which we live exist. We can conclude that "the universe has a cause of its
existence" because we can prove that the universe exists by stating that humans and objects around
us exist. In my opinion, we can can also conclude that everything in the universe has a cause as to
why it was created

Dissecting Clarke's Cosmological Argument
Dissecting Clarke's Cosmological Argument
In the following paper, I will outline Samuel Clarke's "Modern Formulation of the Cosmological
Argument" and restate some of the points that he makes. Samuel Clarke's argument for the existence
of God states that "There has existed from eternity some one unchangeable and independent being"
(37). The argument follows a logical flow and can be better understood when the structure is laid
out and the argument reconstructed.
Clarke begins his argument with a use of disjunctive syllogism, a form of valid logical reasoning
that proposes two outcomes, denies one, and thus proves the other to be true. Clarke's premise states
that one of the two following statements must be true: either there has ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
He states that since the series of dependent beings couldn't be caused by any external or internal
source, that it would have to be cause "absolutely by nothing". He then states that this is a
"contradiction to be done in time; and because duration in this case makes no difference." He also
states that it is a "contradiction to suppose it done from eternity." Since the universe has parts that
come into existence at one occasion and not another, it must have a cause. There could supposedly
be an infinite regress of causes if there was evidence for such, but lacking such evidence, God must
exist as the cause. Clarke does not specifically identify God at any point in his argument. He ends
with "There must be on the contrary, of necessity have existed from eternity, some one immutable
and independent Being" (37). Whatever one chooses to call this "Being", it is the one unchangeable
and independent being that Clarke attempts to prove the existence of in his argument.
Works Cited
Feinberg, Joel, and Russ Shafer–Landau. Reason and Responsibility, Readings in Some Basic
Problems of Philosophy. 14th ed. Boston: Wadsworth, 2008.

Regarding the Cosmological Argument
Regarding the Cosmological Argument
The goal of the cosmological argument is to support the claim that God exists as the first cause of
the universe. According to Nagel, the argument runs as following:
(P1) Every event must have a cause.
(P2) If every event must have a cause, event A must have a cause B, which in turn must have a
cause C, and so on.
(P3) There is no end to this backward progression of causes.
(C1) This backward progression of causes will be an infinite series of event.
(P4) An infinite series of events is unintelligible and absurd.
(P5) The existence of the universe does not result from an unintelligible and absurd process.
(P6) The existence of the universe does not result from an infinite series of events.
(C2) ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
If God's existence is not an event, then P1 ("Every event must have a cause") does not apply to it
and it is not necessary for God's existence to have a cause, even if it is granted that every event is
caused. Thus, Nagel's argument that God's existence must have a cause because every event must
have a cause is not sound.
Although the second part of Nagel's objection, directed towards the response "God is self–caused,"
is reasonable, it contains a small weakness. If God can be "self–caused," and there is no sufficient
reason as to why only God can cause itself to exist, then it is logical to think that the universe can
also be self–caused. The weakness of this argument is the difference between God and the universe.
The universe consists of all events and is inseparable from them. No event in the universe, so far,
has been self–caused, thus many components of the universe demands a cause other than
themselves. It is difficult to imagine the universe to be self–caused when so many of its components
are not. God, on the other hand, is often thought to exist outside of the universe due to its
timelessness. Similar to abstract objects such as numbers, God does not have a temporal location
and its existence is not associated with any event. To imagine God to be self–caused does not
involve the same kind of difficulty as imagining the universe to be self–caused, since no part of God
demands a cause other than

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 on Helpwriting.net
...
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

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 on Helpwriting.net ...
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

Weak Arguments in Cosmological Argument by Thomas Aquinas
Many philosophers have posed the question: How can I prove that God exists? Thomas Aquinas
attempted to prove the existence of God in a rational way through his Cosmological argument.
Aquinas argued that every event as we observe it has a cause and a casual chain cannot be infinite.
Therefore, a first cause is necessary and this cause is God. Aquinas' argument is unsuccessful
because it assumes that God is a necessary being, fails to prove that the world is not an infinite chain
of events, and undermines the basis of his argument by saying that God is infinite. Aquinas argued
the existence of God with five main points. Aquinas began by saying that nothing can be a cause of
itself; rather every event was caused by some prior event. Therefore event A causes event B that
leads to event C and so forth. He believed in this cause and effect relationship but believed that there
must be a first cause as a starting point. When contemplating this starting point Aquinas rejected the
possibility of an infinite series of events. This means that the universe has not existed forever and
there must have been something from which every single event stems. There must be an uncaused
first cause, which Aquinas concluded to be God. The first cause is called the unmoved mover. The
unmoved mover is what set all other events and beings in motion.
The arguments made by Aquinas at first seem to be powerful. However, when examining and taking
a closer look the arguments don't seem to be as

The Cosmological Argument Analysis
The early idea of the cosmological argument was developed by two historic philosophers named
Plato and Aristotle. The idea of the cosmological argument was to provide the proof of the existence
of God. A philosopher named Saint Thomas Aquinas then took this idea and developed it into what
he calls his "The Five Ways". The five ways that Aquinas provided to prove that God existed is by
the unmoved mover, the first cause, the argument from contingency, and the argument from degree.
The first of the five ways that Aquinas proves that god exists is the idea of the unmoved mover or
"prime mover". Aquinas believes that all things that are natural are in motion and are finite. Since
everything natural is in motion and finite then a first mover must exist. If the first mover or the
prime mover does not exist then there would be no other mover and nothing natural would be in
motion. The natural things around us are not able to move by their own so the existence of the prime
mover is created. Aquinas believes God is the first mover of the universe, unmoved by no one else,
which makes God the unmoved mover. God set the universe in motion because nothing moves
itself; ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Aquinas's second reasoning is very similar to his idea of the unmoved mover and they take place
simultaneously. Aquinas believes that everything has a cause. He does not believe in the idea of an
infinite cause because that cause can be traced back to the first cause which makes it finite. Since
everything is finite then there must be a first efficient cause for itself. Without a first cause there
would be no later causes which, therefore means, nothing at all would exist. It is impossible for the
first cause to have a cause. Aquinas believes that since the universe exists, then there needs to be a
first cause which began all causes, which is why God is the uncaused causer of the

The Kalam Cosmological Argument
God exists because we have people who exists, nature exists, the world exists. According to the
video on the Kalam Cosmological argument, People who don't believe God exists think that the
world and everything in it is just here and there is no cause and effect. If something exists than there
is a cause because the world doesn't just come out of nowhere. There must be a reason why things
are the way they are. People create things in the world like social artifacts or etc. God created people
to make the world what it is based on new intentions or etc. In the Ontological argument it states
that "If it is possible that God Exists, then it follows logically that God does exist". It means that
God exits because it's possible or more likely ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
We will always live in a world where there is still problems and people are still trying to protest
about what's lacking in American society. Some people thing that American society has charge like
technology has change but, it hasn't. but it's their opinion and it's their lives that is changing not all
of society. We still have problems with people who thing that they can fix what's going on in this
society but, we can't unless we all come together but that want to happen because people have
different views about American society. The American society is divided between Trump supporters
and people who don't support Trump and it's divided for other reasons as well. I think we always
had that problem when American society is divide but when Trump was selected to be President, the
society being divide was more known and it made our society feel like we are at war with each
other. The American society has a set back because we are in 2018 and we still have problems with
people who have different culture, religions, race, or etc. that are being discriminated. We still face
conflicts about how a person should be and look like. Some people are depression with how society
is and how some people treat them. We still have some

William Lane Craig's Cosmological Argument
There is no doubt that one of the most debated and misunderstood topics is the creation of the
universe and furthermore the existence of God. In natural theology, a theology that provides
arguments for the existence of God based on reason, a cosmological argument is an argument in
which the existence of a unique being such as God is deduced from facts or alleged facts concerning
causation, change, motion, or contingency in respect of the universe as a whole or processes within
it. Like all cosmological arguments, the Kalām cosmological argument is an argument from the
existence of the universe to the existence of God. A defender of this argument is William Lane
Craig, an American theologian, Christian apologist, and analytic philosopher. In this paper, I will
describe Craig's argument for the existence of God and oppose Craig's argument. ... Show more
The Kalām cosmological argument suggests that the universe was created by God. The Kalām
argument rests on the idea that the universe has a beginning in time whereas other forms of the
argument are consistent with the universe having an infinite past. However according to the Kalām
argument, it is because the universe has a beginning in time that its existence is in need of an
explanation. The Kalām cosmological argument is rooted in the Ilm al– Kalām heritage. Ilm al–
Kalām, also called "Islamic scholastic theology" is foreshortened to Kalām. It is an Islamic
undertaking born out of the need to establish and defend the tenets of Islamic faith. William Lane
Craig wrote a book titled The Kalām Cosmological Argument in 1979 that comprises a defense of
the argument. Craig establishes the existence of God based upon the metaphysical impossibility of
an infinite regress of past

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 the universe 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 on Helpwriting.net ...
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

St. Thomas Aquinas Cosmological Argument
Catholic Church:
St. Thomas Aquinas (Cosmological Argument)
In St. Thomas Aquinas's cosmological argument claims the following that the universe exist and its
very existence has a cause and that cause is God. In his unfinished book Summa Theologiae,
Aquinas put forward five ways for the existence of God.
His first way is the argument from motion and by studying the works of Aristotle, the Greek
Philosopher, he concluded from common observation that the planets, rolling stone or any object
that is in motion is put in motion by other forces or object. From this theory, Aquinas believes there
must have been an unmoved mover which is God who sets things in motion. It is certain and evident
that in the world some things are set in motion. Whatever is in motion is put in motion by another.
Therefore, by which it is put in motion must also be put in motion by another and by another again
but this cannot go for infinity because ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The final way that St. Thomas Aquinas speaks of has to do with the universe and the order of nature.
Aquinas states that common sense tells us that the universe works in such a way, that one can
conclude that it was designed by an intelligent designer. In other words, all physical laws and the
order of nature and life were designed and ordered by God. Because whatever lacks in intelligence
cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being with knowledge and intelligence.
Some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end, and this being we
call God. This argument by Aquinas is suggesting that inanimate objects such as the planets could
not have placed themselves into the orbits they have, because they lack the intelligence to do so. Yet
they are aligned so perfectly, this must mean it must have been done so by a being with the
intelligence to do so. Although we humans are intelligent, we cannot move planets, so that leaves us
with

The Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God
The cosmological argument for the existence of god According to St. John 8:31–32 said, "If you
remain in my word, you will truly be my disciples, and you will know the truth and the truth shall
set you free". This sentence is come from the bible, but I am not a christian, so I do not really
understand what this means. I guess it was talking about if people believe in god, and trust his
words, and in the end the will get the freedom. For many of christians, they believes in god, but
many of the treatises of theologians and Christian philosophers can shed much light on the existence
of God, the problem of evil and other objections raised by modern unbelievers. So, what I going to
talk about is cosmological argument for the existence ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
On the other hand, some people do not believed in "god–typed" things. To explain this objection,
and how the two forms of cosmological argument evade it, I'll use a simple, generic statement of the
cosmological argument: (1) Everything that exists has a cause of its existence. (2) The universe
exists.
Therefore:(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is God.
Therefore:(5) God exists. This argument is subject to a simple objection, introduced by asking,
"Does God have a cause of his existence?"If, on the one hand, God is thought to have a cause of his
existence, then positing the existence of God in order to explain the existence of the universe doesn't
get us anywhere. Without God there is one entity the existence of which we cannot explain, namely
the universe; with God there is one entity the existence of which we cannot explain, namely God.
Positing the existence of God, then, raises as many problems as it solves, and so the cosmological
argument leaves us in no better position than it found us, with one entity the existence of which we
cannot explain. If, on the other hand, God is thought not to have a cause of his existence, i.e. if God
is thought to be an uncaused being, then this too raises difficulties for the simple cosmological
argument. For if God were an uncaused being then his existence would

Aquinas Cosmological Argument Analysis

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Kelly Lindemann

More from Kelly Lindemann (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Aquinas Cosmological Argument Analysis