The Cosmological Argument

have been as a result of a divine being, who wished it to happen, and

St. Thomas Aquinas’s first cosmological argument, the prime mover, defines things in the world as being either in a state of potentiality or in a state of actuality. Those things that are in potentiality are things that have the capability of being reduced to another form. Such as a boy is potentially a man, or tree is potentially a house. Things that are in a state of actuality are things that are currently reaching their potential; such as that boy becoming a man, or that tree becoming that house. Aquinas observed that all things in a state of actuality had to have been put into that state by something that was already in actuality. In thinking about this he concluded that there would have to be an infinite regress of actual things making potential things actual. He concluded that this would be impossible because given that, there would be no first mover. He instead, postulated that there must be a first mover. A being that never had potential but only has existed in a state of infinite actuality. That what we call God.

The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God The cosmological argument seeks to prove the existence of God by looking at the universe. It is an A posteriori proof based on experience and the observation of the world not logic so the outcome is probable or possible not definite. The argument is in three forms; motion, causation and being. These are also the first three ways in the five ways presented by Aquinas through which he believed the existence of God could be shown.

Aquinas’ first and second argument are both very similar to one another. Aquinas states “To cause change is just to draw something out of potentiality into actuality” (Aquinas 43). So here, Aquinas is saying that something has the potential to change. And if you change it that makes it a reality. Aquinas then states “this can only be done by something in actuality.” (Aquinas 43). This something that he is referring to is God. Next Aquinas states “It is therefore impossible for a thing that undergoes a change to cause that change, or for something to change itself. Therefore, whatever undergoes change must be changed by another thing. And, if this other thing undergoes change, it also must be changed by something else, and so on.” (Aquinas 43). However, Aquinas goes back on what he has said and states “But this cannot go back to infinity” (Aquinas 43). This is what we called an “infinite regress”. However, I am not a fan of Aquinas’ theory that an infinite regress is impossible. While it’s understandable, I believe that us as humans will always ask “why?” So we can follow Aquinas and say that an infinite regress is impossible and we must stop at God. But, this brings the questions of “why is God exempt from this?” and if we choose to not follow Aquinas and believe an infinite regress is possible then we can go back into infinity which dismantles 3 of his 5 arguments. After all, he is trying to prove the existence of only one God. Aquinas then wraps up his first argument by saying “We must therefore posit a first cause of change which is not itself changed by anything. And this everyone understands to be God.” (Aquinas 43).

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 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.

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

1. The Cosmological Argument for the existence of God is based on the principle of cause and effect. What this basically means is that the universe was the effect of a cause, which was God. One of the oldest and most well known advocates of the Cosmological Argument was Thomas Aquinas who outlines his argument for the existence of God in his article entitled The Five Ways. The first way in his argument is deals with motion. Aquinas says that in order for something to be in motion something had to move it because it is impossible for something to move without the presence of some sort of outside force upon it. Therefore the world around us, nature, and our very existence could not have been put into motion without the influence of the

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.

In Summa Theologiae, Aquinas answers the question of whether God exists by stating that there are features in the world that offer proof in favour of God’s existence. In what follows I will suggest that even if we were to accept Aquinas’ cosmological argument, the ambiguous use of the term God is not an adequate justification of his reasoning. In addition, I will touch on the significance of the interaction between the objection and big idea of God in raising philosophical problems. The idea of God carries implications of eternal life and is inarguably a big idea in the highest accord. Though Aquinas does not specifically make the connection between God and afterlife; the two seem to go hand in hand.

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”.

Does the First Cause Argument show that God exists? The First Cause Argument (or "cosmological argument") as conjured by Thomas Aquinas (1225- 7 March 1274), an Italian philosopher gives reasoning for the existence of a higher entity called God. Aquinas's argument brings forth the idea that the existence of the universe was orchestrated by a higher entity which in turn shows the existence of the higher entity. This is all based on the premise that everything has a beginning therefore the universe must have had a beginning.

Aquinas studied Aristotle’s observation that nothing can move on its own. Everything that moves in this universe is moved by something else. This is proven by the fact that “things move when potential motion becomes actual motion” and “nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect, therefore nothing can move itself” (Gracyk1). For James Kidd gives an example a movement in his article, Five Ways or Five Proofs. Kidd explains that an eight ball moves by a cue balls which moves by a pool cue, which in turn moves by the player.

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

Here Aquinas argues that everything that happens is the cause of something, but nothing can cause itself. If we trace back a cause all the way back to the beginning of the world, it could not have caused itself. Therefore, God must have been the first cause. Aquinas’ third proof is the Argument from Contingency. We see that everything here on earth is finite. People die, empires fall. All things must come to an end. That means things had to have a beginning where nothing was in existence yet. How did things come into existence? God. Aquinas’s 4th argument is the Argument of Degrees. Here we judge things to be a certain degree of good or bad. But what are we comparing that to? If they have a certain degree of good and bad, then what is the greatest degree of good? And that must be God. Aquinas’s final argument is his Argument from Design. Perhaps one of his strongest arguments Aquinas says that there must be an intelligent designer behind everything. Random objects don’t have any brains to act the way they do. But they are directed in the way they act by God.