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
Thomas Aquinas, a leading scholar of the Middle Ages, argued that “Everything in the universe has a cause. Trace those causes back and there must have been a First Cause that triggered everything else. God is that First Cause.” This was known as his “First Cause” argument.
After exhibiting faulty methods of argument and frequent logical fallacies, the teleological argument fails as a well-crafted argument. The content of this argument refuses to account for evolutionary theory, and fails to solve the burden of proof in showing how everything is designed deliberately. Even the criterion for god, which William Paley outlines, is faulty and unachievable by the current state of reality. Although the argument proves that an amalgamation of forces formed the universe, to consider them conscious is begging the question. Ultimately, the teleological argument is an inadequate and dated explanation for the creation of the universe.
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:
St. Thomas Aquinas presents five arguments to demonstrate the existence of God. However, this paper focuses on the fifth argument. The fifth argument is regarded as the Teleological Argument and states that things that lack intelligence act for some end or purpose. While the fifth argument satisfies God’s existence for Aquinas, some contemporary readers would argue that Aquinas neglects the laws of physics. Others argue that Aquinas allows a loophole in his argument so that the Catholic conception of God is not the only intelligent designer.
In essence, the second argument said that there must be cause--or beginning--to everything, which ultimately, gives rise to effect, result, or the end. Consequently, second effect must be created and caused by the "first element of series" (Bailey and Martin, 2011, 34); therefore, the effect and existence of nth (equals to the last or end) element in series are ultimately caused and created by the 'first element,' which we call God. It is probable that first element may give direct rise to nth element. Other than God, nothing is considered infinite. So, God does not have a cause; and hence, it would have no effect.
Modern science can explain many things. However, one of the things is yet to prove and will most likely never prove, is: why was everything was created? This is where God steps in. He is the only one who could have created the universe. Thus it can be concluded that the world could not have been created by chance. It is extremely complex and ordered, so much so, that it but must be the product of intelligent design. This is God.
Aristotle believed the universe existed since eternity and Christian philosopher John Philoponus (490–570 AD) seeked to refute this theory (Cambridge Dictionary of Christian Theology). This led to the the kalam cosmological argument. In A Defense of the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God, William Lane Craig outlines the kalam cosmological argument. Craig states, the universe had a beginning at some moment in the finite past and, since...
of Gods existence. The factors that go into their views on reason will be compared and accented within this essay. The order of the universe is knowable to Descartes. He proves these by
For the purposes of this debate, I take the sign of a poor argument to be that the negation of the premises are more plausible than their affirmations. With that in mind, kohai must demonstrate that the following premises are probably false:
The Main Strengths of the Cosmological Argument There are many strengths within the Cosmological Argument which have proven theories and ways to prove the existence of God. Many of these strengths have come from such scholars as; Copleston, Aquinas and Leibniz, all of which have put together major points to prove the existence of a non-contingent being. One of the main strengths of the Cosmological Argument is from Aquinas way I that was about motion. This would be a posteriori argument because you need to gather evidence from the world around you.
Aquinas’ first proof says anything currently in motion was put in motion by another thing. This “mover,” as he calls it, cannot also be the “moved.” The mover transfers its own actuality of motion into the moved, which until then only has the potentiality of motion. Since nothing can have both actuality and potentiality at the same time, the mover and moved cannot be the same thing. Since the universe is motion, it could not have been something from the universe which put it into motion. Therefore, there is a God who first put the universe into motion.
the first cause. He did not have to be caused as he was always there.
In this paper I will be exploring two arguments on the topic of the existence of God. In particular, I will focus on Saint Thomas Aquinas’s efficient causation argument for God’s existence and an objection to it from Bertrand Russell. After an analysis of Aquinas’s argument and a presentation of Russell’s objection, I will show how Russell’s objection fails.
As known and approved by many scientists and philosophers, the big bang was the beginning of the universe. Big bang theory states, “the universe began as an infinitesimal point that exploded suddenly into a huge ball of matter and space and that has continued inflating to form the gigantic and still expanding universe we see around us” (Velasquez 232). It was the rapid expansion of matter from a state of extremely high density and temperature that marked the origin of the universe roughly 13.8 billion years ago. All the particles, stars, planets, and even humans exist because of the big bang. Aquinas believes that God was the one that set off the infinite chain of dominoes that caused the motion that is present today. However, Newton’s gravitational law would say otherwise. By Newton’s terms, the first occurrence of motion would be in the first particles that were created due to the big bang. The particles attracted each other and caused the fall of the first domino in the chain of motion or more so that maybe big bang was the first movement itself. Moreover, Newton’s first law of motion would not necessary as the phenomenon can be easily explained through Newton’s second law of motion, third law of motion, and the gravitational law. Since the gravitational law and the second law of motion are very similar in terms of when referring to gravity, they could be talked in a single argument (in this case in particular). The two laws would say that the particle’s force of gravity attracts each other and causes movement. Furthermore, Newton’s third law tells the particle’s force of gravity to exist in a pair, meaning when particle A is exerting force on particle B, particle B is also exerting an equal amount of force onto particle A. On a large scheme, this is also evident in the solar system; the sun’s gravity attracts the other planets and according to the third
Presently, the Big Bang theory is the most logical scientific explanation of how the universe began. The majority of cosmologists favor the Big Bang theory and the idea that the expanding universe had an initial, incredibly hot and dense start (Peterson 232). According to the Big Bang theory, at one point in time, more than 12 billion years ago, matter was condensed in a single place, and a huge explosion scattered matter out is all directions (“Big Bang Theory” 403). At the moment of its origin, the universe was infinitely dense and hot, but as the expansion occurred, the universe cooled and became less dense (Narlikar 12). The debris the spewed from the initial explosion became the building blocks of matter, forming the planets, stars, and galaxies (Narlikar 12). Officially, the Big Bang model is called the standard cosmological model (SCH), and it has been the most widely accepted theory of the origin of the universe since the 1960s (Rich and Stingl 1). Most astronomers are in agreement that the universe’s beginning can be traced back to 10 to 15 billion years ago following some type of explosive start (Narlikar 12). Big Bang theorists have estimated the actual bang occurred 13.7 billion years ago and was followed by an inflationary period that created time, matter, and space (Rich and Stingl 1).