The Invalidity of the Cosmological Argument

Good Essays
Humans can never know for the certain why the universe was created or what caused it but, we can still create arguments and theories to best explain what might have created the universe. The cosmological argument is another idea to prove the existence of god. Many philosophers debate wheatear the cosmological argument is valid. The cosmological argument starts off quite simply: whatever exists must come from something else. Nothing is the source of its own existences, nothing is self-creating []. The cosmological argument states at some point, the cause and effect sequence must have a beginning. This unexpected phenomenal being is god. According to the argument, god is the initial start of the universe as we know it. Though nothing is self-creating cosmological believers say god is the only being the is self –created. Aquinas, an Italian philosopher, defended the argument and developed the five philosophical proofs for the existence of god knows as, the “Five Ways”.[]. In each “way” he describes his proof how god fills in the blanks of the unexplainable. The first way simply states that, things in motion must be put in motion by something. The second was is efficient because, nothing brings its self into existence. The third is, possibility and necessity [!]. Aqunhias’ has two more ‘ways’ but for the purpose of this essay I won’t be focusing on them heavily. These ways have started philosophers to debate and question his arguments ultimately made the cosmological argument debatable. The cosmological argument is however not a valid argument in explaining the existence of god because the conclusions do not logically follow the premises.
The main point in the cosmological argument is the first cause. As stated (by Aquinas) the world...

... middle of paper ...

...he conclusion does not logically follow. If nothing is self creating, god for whatever reason should not be an exception. Aquinas first way suggested thing in motion are put in motion something. Big Bang itself was a movement and god could not have set this motion himself, because it would mean god was put in motion by a something else in motion. By changing the conclusions for the cosmological argument to logically follow the premises would make it valid. Rather than forcing god as a conclusion, keeping an open mind and proposing counter arguments help us understand the possibilities out there. Maybe there is no god at all and the universe was always existed. Perhaps there was another universe prior to ours which was compressed so much the tiny spec of left exploded in a fraction of a second. Though the cosmological argument is invalid for explaining the existence
Get Access