Thereby the first role of God established by Aquinas in his first way is that God is the ‘prime mover’. He was the being that caused everything after it to move. Deists see their role as ‘cause in fieri’ that God caused the first movement but then left it to continue by itself. Aquinas’s second way is the uncaused cause. His cosmological argument states that every affect has a cause, which itself has a cause.
Secondly, Aquinas concludes that common sense observation tells us that no object can create itself. In other words, some previous object creates it, but there cannot be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist. Aquinas believes that ultimately there must have been an uncaused first cause that begins the chain of existence for all things. I quite assent to the idea that there must have a first unmoved mover to put the universe into motion. As we all know, everything has a beginning and an end, so as to the universe.
Examine the view that the cosmological argument provides an explanation for the world and is a trustworthy basis for belief in God? (21) The cosmological argument is an à posterioriargument based ultimately on the existence of the cosmos, and the indication it leads to a supreme being generally identified as God. The existence of the universe, the argument claims needs an explanation or a cause, the only appropriate cause for this could be God, this argument is based on experience rather than theoretical logic. Aristotle claims ‘if there is movement and change then there must be an unmoved mover’ although there is one huge problem with this, why does God have no cause? Most scientists argue that "God" is not a scientifically proven cause, whereas Aristotle would argue that God is ‘a remote and unchanging being who allows his world to be changeable so that it can gradually move towards the perfection which he already enjoys.’ A further fault with this would be the principle that the universe can’t explain its own existence, Why is it here at all?
The cosmological argument has several different forms and seeks to prove the existence of an external necessary being which caused the universe to come into existence. This external agent according to the cosmological argument is God. It is an a posterior argument meaning it is based on our experience of the universe around us. Plato and Aristotle were the first to postulate views on the idea that the universe could not exist without a mover. They both argued that the fact of motion needs a prior agency to motivate it and this mover itself would not need a further mover itself as it would be a prime mover, a necessary being.
How successful is the teleological argument in proving the existence of God? The teleological argument is an a posteriori argument: it tries to justify the existence of God by asking “Why are we here?” Is it due to design or chance? The argument goes as far back as the days of Cicero and has been objected by the likes of Charles Darwin. One of the first known teleological arguments is the argument from analogy, which is argued by William Paley and Aquinas. Paley believes that some natural objects display design like qualities- they display a fitness to purpose.
His next premise states that this mover was acted upon by a preceding object, and that object acted upon by yet another mover. However, we cannot trace these movers and objects back infinitely, therefore a first mover must exist that set the objects into motion. Aquinas concludes by saying the existence of a first mover points to the existence of a God. Similarly, in his second way, Aquinas describes the nature of the efficient cause that points to the existence of a first cause. An efficient cause is a cause that produces other causes.
These other objects, in turn, was put into motion by still another object preceding it, and so forth. This series cannot go on backward to infinity, though, since there would otherwise be no first mover and thus no subsequent movement. Therefore, we must conclude that there is a first unmoved mover, which we understand to be God. Second, we observe that everything has an efficient cause and that nothing is or can be the cause of itself. It is impossible, though, that the series of causes should extend back to infinity because every cause is dependent on a prior cause and the ultimate cause is thus dependent on a previous cause.
Explain the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Cosmological Argument for Proving God Exists. (25) The Cosmological argument is an argument put forward by the Christian Philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) in an attempt to prove God’s existence. However, it is important to take into account that Aquinas already had a strong belief in God when putting this theory forward in his Summa Theologiae, meaning that instead of trying to prove God’s existence, he was more trying to solidify his already established faith based on reason through looking at the cause of the Universe which Aquinas claims must be God. In Summa Theolgiae, Aquinas attempts to logically prove God’s existence in his ‘Five Ways’ though the first three are the ones which are predominantly sited when referring to the argument. The first of these give ways make similar points based on the idea that infinite regression is not possible; there must have been one thing that started off everything that happened.
Obviously, our reason cannot of itself provide us with complete knowledge of God, if it could we would ourselves would be God. Nevertheless, through our reason we are able to gain some certain knowledge of God. Thomas Aquinas theorized five different logical arguments to prove the existence of God utilizing scientific hypotheses and basic assumptions of nature called "The Five Ways". The First Way is Motion. Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
Evans and Manis define the Cosmological argument as using cosmos and the universe to infer the existence of God ( Evans and Manis, pg. 67). This argument is often times known as the “first cause argument” because they imply that God must have existed or caused the universe to exist ( Evans and Manis, pg.67). McCloskey argues that the cosmological argument is one that suggests an argument for the world as we know it today (McCloskey, pg.63). McCloskey states that one of the major problems is believing in an uncaused first cause.