The cosmological argument focuses on nature and the origin of the universe. The three main philosophers I will be looking at with regards to the cosmological argument are Aquinas, Averroes and Maimonides. The simplest form of the cosmological argument follows the structure that; the cosmos exists and that the existence of the cosmos means that it must have a cause, and this cause is God. It attempts to move from the existence of the cosmos, which is something perceivable, to the existence of God, something unperceivable. The cosmological argument is both “a posteriori” and “deductive”, so conclusions are derived from experience, and if all of the premises of the argument are true, it would follow that the conclusion is also true. (Richmond) The a posteriori basis of the cosmological argument is the awareness that the universe exists. We observe and think through the use of our senses, then our senses combine in order to suggest that there is a real world which is causing our experiences. This implies that we can experience the real world, and therefore we can arrive at the conclusion that the universe does exist. (Richmond)
Aquinas believed that there was a chain of existence which must have a starting point, he thought that the starting point couldn’t depend on anything but that it must exist necessarily. His conclusion was that this starting point was God. In his Summa Teleogiae, Aquinas puts forward 5 empircal proofs for the existence of God, which he calls his “Five Ways”. The first 3 ways can all be used to explain different variations of the cosmological argument however, the first way is Aquinas’ main focus.
Aquinas’ first way was basically the idea that some things are in motion and anything that is in motion must have be...
... middle of paper ...
... not to the Cosmological argument itself, in his Meditations 1 chapter which focuses on doubt, Descartes has the idea that the whole universe is just an idea that we have created ourselves, but it is all an illusion and not actually real. He then goes on to another idea that the universe is not even our own creation, but a delusion created by an evil demon in order to deceive us. (Richmond)
I think that the cosmological argument can seem successful in some ways, for the basic idea that if there must be a first cause, the first cause would be a supreme being, therefore leading people towards the idea of God. I don’t personally think it is the strongest argument for the existence of God, for example I believe that the Teleological and Ontological arguments are both more logical ways to prove the existence of God, and therefore they are less flawed and more acceptable.
St. Anselm and St. Thomas Aquinas were considered as some of the best in their period to represent philosophy. St. Anselm’s argument is known as the ontological argument; it revolves entirely around his statement, “God is that, than which no greater can be conceived” (The Great Conversation, Norman Melchert 260). St. Thomas Aquinas’ argument is known as the cosmological argument; it connects the effects of events to the cause for why they happened. Anselm’s ontological proof and Aquinas’ cosmological proof both argued for God’s existence, differed in the way they argued God’s existence, and had varying degrees of success using these proofs.
Parmenides of Elea once presented the expression ex nihilo nihil fit, which translates to nothing comes from nothing for one of his many theses. The Cosmological Argument, an argument of the posteriori category, meaning that it requires data based on past experiences, argues for the existence of God with this type of expression at its core. By attempting to prove how the universe must be influenced by an independent being that has godlike qualities, cosmological arguments suggest that it is rational to believe in an omnipotent being and its accountability of creating the universe.
Aquinas says there are five ways to prove that God exists and one of them is through efficient causation. He starts with the premise that every effect we observe must have been caused by something else. This can be compared to the effect of a particular tree being caused by the planting of a particular seed that grew into that tree. Second, nothing that we observe could have caused itself. A particular tree could not have produced the particular seed that later grew into that tree. The existence of something before itself is contradictory and impossible. He then goes on to explain that if nothing caused itself then it must have been caused by something else that was also caused by something else and so on. If we continue to go up the chain of causes, however, it would seem that the chain of causes goes back to infinity.
Aquinas’ third way argument states that there has to be something that must exist, which is most likely God. He starts his argument by saying not everything must exist, because things are born and die every single day. By stating this we can jump to the conclusion that if everything need not exist then there would have been a time where there was nothing. But, he goes on, if there was a time when there was nothing, then nothing would exist even today, because something cannot come from nothing. However, our observations tell us that something does exist, therefore there is something that must exist, and Aquinas says that something is God.
William Lane Craig is not the original creator of this argument. It was originally created by Ilm al-Kalam, but Craig is a modern philosopher that has restored this argument. In this argument, Craig asserts that the reason the universe exists is because God created it. This cosmological argument is unique because all other variations of cosmological arguments show that the universe has always existed and has an infinite past. The first premise states that “everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of existence” (Philosophy of Religion). The second premise says that the existence of the universe has a beginning which means its past is not infinite (Philosophy of Religion). From these two premises, we can conclude that something created the universe and if something caused the universe to exists, then it had to be caused by God. These two conclusions prove that God does exists. This argument implies that the universe does not have an infinite past. Even though it doesn’t directly say that the universe has a beginning, it can be proven mathematically by showing that infinity cannot exists.
Examining the two works against each other as if it were a debate makes it a bit clearer to compare. Aquinas, reveals his argument under the groundwork that there are essentially two methods of understanding the truth. One being that it can be surmised through reason an logic, and the other being via inner faith. On the surface at this point it could be argued that this ontological determination a bit less convoluted than Anselm, yet I tend to think it could be a bit more confusing. This is what leads him to the claim that the existence of God can be proven by reason alone or “a priori”. Stemming from this belief he formulated his Five Proofs or what he called the “Quinquae Viae”. The first of which is fairly simple based on the fact that something in motion had to have been moved. Agreeing that something set it in motion therefor there must have been a...
First off, The Cosmological Argument was developed by St. Thomas Aquinas in 1274 through his work entitled Summa Theologica (otherwise known as Five Ways). Its purpose was to prove God’s existence through sensory perception. In Part One, Article Three of Prima Pars, Aquinas states that in order to debate, one must become involved in the opposing argument, then afterwards argue their view. In this case, one must look at both the argument for God’s existence (Theism) and for God’s non-existence (Atheism) in order to truly understand the argument that they are arguing for or against. The cosmological argument is divided into three parts, each containing varying sub-arguments:
Aquinas sets up this argument in his discussion of whether or not God exists. His five proofs set up the framework for much of his later writings in the Summa Theologica. As with the five proofs in their entirety, most of Aquinas’ reasoning stems from the third proof concerning the existence of God. The first two proofs lead to the third’s conclusion that God is "esse a se", or to be of itself. From this conclusion of God as an infinite being, Aquinas moves to the third question, concerning the simplicity of God. In article four of question three, Aquinas determines that God is ultimately simple in that his essence does not differ from his being. He writes, "Therefore, since in God there is no potentiality, it follows that in Him essence does not differ from being. Therefore, His essence is His being." God is an unchanging, infinite being. There is no conceivable way in which he could have parts, such as a separate being and a separate essence. From these proofs and others, Aquinas determines that God is an all knowing, perfectly good, perfectly powerful being. Moving back to the third proof of the existence of God, Aquinas determines that God is the ultimate being and that his existence precludes the existence of contingent beings. The notion entails the idea that without infinity, finite beings would not exist.
McCloskey starts with disputing the Cosmological argument. McCloskey states, "The mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in the existence of such a being" (McCloskey, 1968). Evans and Manis argue that for everything to exist there had to be a creator that created them. "Ultimately, the explanation of any contingent beings existence will be incomplete unless it culmi...
The first conclusion that he comes to is that due to the five premises, God had to have been the entity that placed the ideas of God into Descartes’ mind (157). Through the five premises, Descartes casts out the idea of his thoughts of God coming from inside of himself, and he is able to pin the cause to God. In short, Descartes argues that he is a thinking thing with an idea of God that could not in any way originated from himself due to his imperfect nature. After determining that God must have been the entity to put the ideas into his mind, Descartes’ finalizes his argument with one last conclusion; God must exist (157). After determining that there was no other way that the ideas of God could have came from anywhere else but God, Descartes was able to come to the conclusion that God
Early elements of the Cosmological Argument were developed by the world renowned philosophers Plato and Aristotle between the years 400 and 200 BC (Boeree). Medieval philosopher Saint Thomas Aquinas expanded upon their ideas in the late 13th Century when he wrote, “The Five Ways.” Since then the Cosmological Argument has become one of the most widely accepted and criticized arguments for the existence of God. My objective in this paper is to explain why the Cosmological Argument is a reasonable argument for the existence of God, the importance of understanding that it is an inductive a posteriori argument, and defend my position against common opposing arguments.
The main difference between St. Anselm and St. Aquinas, is that while they both believe that there is a “God”, who is the creator of everything, Aquinas focuses more on proving factors that he is real and that he does exist. However, not only does Aquinas go on to prove that God is real, he has five different theories on his existence, most of which have been taken directly from Aristotle’s arguments for a Prime Mover.
Descartes was born 1596 in France. At eight years old he was already in college. Descartes was a scientist and was also known as the father of modern Western Philosophy. He is famous for his book “The mediations of philosophy,” first published in 1641. He is much like me because he refused to stem off other philosophers thought. Instead, he created his philosophy. He is most famous for his quote “I think therefore I am.” This paper will include Descartes doubt, Descartes the cogito, his knowledge of the material world. The principles of the Cartesian epistemology. The “light of nature.”
Rene Descartes was a philosopher credited as the “Father of Modern Philosophy.” He was given this title because of his impeccable ideas he continuously came up with. He is well-known for his many famous pieces such including his very own Descartes Mediations 1 and 2. In these pieces he discusses how he came about his ideas of “I think, therefore I am.” His way of thinking is incredible and far from a normal humans perspective.
Thomas Aquinas uses five proofs to argue for God’s existence. A few follow the same basic logic: without a cause, there can be no effect. He calls the cause God and believes the effect is the world’s existence. The last two discuss what necessarily exists in the world, which we do not already know. These things he also calls God.