His cosmological argument states that every affect has a cause, which itself has a cause. You cannot have an infinite chain of causation so there must be a first cause. This first cause must be God. The second role that was established by Aquinas for God is Causa Sine - the first cause. God being transcendent does not need a cause but he is the first cause for everything within the universe.
Meanwhile, McCloskey believes that the only conclusion we can reach is that something caused the universe to exist. From reading his article, I feel that he does not formulate a valid argument as to how the power exists or how it created the universe. He goes onto to describe any creator that could exist is either a powerful being or a muddler and is not a god, but an evil spirit or a being that had very disastrous consequences due to their limitations ( McCloskey, pg.64). McCloskey closes his argument of the cosmological argument by stating that belief in either is not a source of strength or security ( McCloskey,
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 two definitions of omniscient each raise different problems, the former raises questions about God’s omnipotence, as one needs to assess if the laws of nature can limit an omnipotent God. The latter raises problems as, if He exists outside of time as an eternal creator and knows the past, present and future simultaneously, do we still have free will? Problems to God’s omniscience highlighted in Book 5 is Molina who states that God does not interfere with humans choices or decisions, but merely observes all possible outcomes and thus sees the past, present and future simultaneously, fitting with an eternal God. Aquinas gives the image of a man standing on a mountain and witnessing the whole road and everything that happens on it and the various paths we may take. However, it is important to note how the man on the mountain does not influence any choices and so just because one sees what is happening, this does not mean that it in any way influences the decisions made.
Without God, there can be no absolutes or enforced morality. Furthermore, the cosmological argument asserts that because this universe has a beginning, it must have been created by something greater. Finally, when looking at the universe, we are forced to logically conclude that a God was behind the creation due to the deliberate way in which it is obviously set up in order to sustain human life. These principles show that Atheism, while given the appearance of science and discovery, fails to address the major questions that the theology of a creator God more than
Aquinas generalizes everything in the universe based on the small amount of things he has actually seen or experienced. These generalizations should not be made without strong evidence. It can also be argued that not taking your surroundings into account whilst considering the universe is a huge error of over simplification, which makes the argument of induction seem week. David Hume however had a very strong empiricist view on the universe and can say that the assumptions based on what’s around us can only be applied to the present and do not provide any information on the past or future of the universe. Bertrand Russell also put forth the argument that the universe is a brute fact and it created itself.
God’s Existence Bigfoot and the Lockness Monster is a couple of myths that humans have yet to prove or disprove existence. Humans argue back and forth desperately trying to prove their existence even if it means creating false evidence. The same can be said about the existence of God. God’s existence however is in a much higher level and has been argued by man for countless years. There are quite a few arguments to prove his existence and to disprove it in the Philosophical Traditions a Text with Readings, by Louis P. Pojman, also arguments taught in class.
Assess how far the cosmological argument proves that God exists (15 mark) Russell opposed to the cosmological argument as evidence for the existence of God. He added that Copleston was making a fallacy of composition, just because humans have a mother it does not mean the universe had to have a mother. The universe does not have to have a beginning. Russell is supporting the possibility of infinite regress or suggested that there may be no explanation for the universe. The universe may have always existed and that this is a 'brute fact'.
Explain the Cosmological argument The cosmological argument is an argument that is concerned with finding an explanation for the universe, and conveys the idea that the universe is not self-explanatory and that there is initially a first cause behind its existence. The argument is based on contingency and states, a contingency is something that may or may not happen. Things come into existence because something has caused them to exist, however these things don’t necessarily have to exist; there is a chain of causes going back to the beginning of time when the universe was created. In St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae he puts forward five ways for the existence of God, of which the first three are cosmological arguments. The five ways are arguments from motion, efficient causes,
Although this possibility does not address the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” It supports certain finite causes. An infinite regress of causes for existence could have not started off from a first cause because the finite cause caused the first and a finite cause caused that find and so forth, meaning that the if you Consider C then you have to consider A because both possibilities acknowledge that there’s an infinite cause of existence. This possibility is implausible because it is already confirmed that the universe is finite and that a first finite cause caused the universe into being. This possibility infinitely fights off the problem of