The Main Properties of the Cosmological Argument

817 Words4 Pages
The Main Properties of the Cosmological Argument The cosmological argument began with Plato and ever since been defended and attacked by many great philosophers. One of the supporters was Leibniz. The cosmological argument is basically an argument about causation. Its major supporter was Thomas Aquinas though Gotfried Leibniz also put forward a simplified version of Aquinas's cosmological argument. The major critics of the argument have included David Hume and Bertrand Russell who question the basic principle that the argument works from. While the arguments of Aquinas assume that the universe cannot be temporally infinite, there is a version of the cosmological argument (supported by Leibniz (1646-1714) among others) that allows that the universe is temporally infinite. Leibniz regards the cosmological argument as a strong argument because there has to be an explanation for life. In 1710 Leibniz furthered Aquinas' third "way" (self existence) into what he called the "Principle of Sufficient Reason". By 'Sufficient Reason' he meant "complete explanation". He thinks it is logical that there is a reason for existence. Leibniz put forward a very simple and understandable version of the cosmological argument, which states that there must be a reason, why things exist because there must be a reason why anything happens and why one thing happens rather than another. If something exists, it is that something faced with the possibility of making it exist or not making it exist chose to make it exist. Ultimately as things exist, there must be a first-mover that itself was not caused to exist. This first-mover is what we under... ... middle of paper ... ...infinite. If the past stretches back infinitely, then there never was a Prime Cause. If there have been an infinite number of causes in the past then logically there cannot have been a first cause. 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 paradoxical. The cosmological argument does however assist with the question of existence and many philosophers observe the theory as a strong one. Therefore, the cosmological argument, although able to be understood easily and useful in some cases, is not sustainable argument and cannot be regarded as a logical explanation for the existence of God.
Open Document