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.
The cosmological argument is a posteriori argument and also a deductive argument; this is because it is based on logical thinking about the existence of God. The cosmological argument has had many famous philosophers who have contributed to the idea of God existing, from the Ancient Greeks (Plato and Aristotle) to the medievals like St. Thomas Aquinas and David Hume and the relatively recent Russell and Copleston. The cosmological argument has also produced the Kálam argument in which is a form of the cosmological argument in which argues for the existence of the first cause (motion) for the universe. The kálam argument can be traced back to Jewish, Christian and Muslim thinkers, but mainly to Al-Kindi and Al-Ghazali. The basic premise of the Kálam argument is that something must of caused the universe to begin to exist, this cause must be necessary therefore it is God.
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.
Cosmological Argument The cosmological argument is a posteriori argument because it is a on what can be seen in the world and the universe * The argument is based on the belief that there is a first cause behind the existence of the universe. * The argument was first developed by Plato and Aristotle. * Thomas Aquinas has developed the most popular version of the cosmological argument. He developed his five ways to prove the existence of God in his book Summa Theologica. The first of the three ways form proof for the existence of God and are Change (or motion), Cause and Contingency.
He was an idealist in the sense that we are aware of the real world and a transcendent because he thought that ultimate reality goes beyond our sense experience. He believed that there are certain things that we couldn’t gain from sense experience alone e.g. a sense of time and space. Kant thought everything was bound by time and space. If we didn’t have intuitions of space and time there would be no experience at all so we must possess some innate knowledge in order for us to live within it.
He therefore rejected an infinite universe because he did not believe that it was a satisfactory explanation for its existence. Copleston supported Aquinas’ rejection of infinite regress on the grounds that an infinite chain of contingent beings could only ever consist of contingent beings, which would never be able to bring itself into existence. However, Bertand Russell opposed that the cosmological argument was evidence for the existence of God, he rejected the idea of contingency also, and he argued that a ‘necessary being’ has no meaning. Kant examined the argument of the existence of a supreme being as a first cause of the universe. He argued that cause and effect can only be applied to the world.
If you are to look at the universe and say that there was no cause, it just is and always has been, then you are making the point of an uncaused cause. If the universe just is and always has been, then to say that there cannot be a necessarily existing being would contradict this statement. Another issue is to say that there was a cause, and it is a Big Bang theory. When this is considered, then it is a cause, but there has to be a cause before it, and before that, and so on and so forth. These all point to a beginning event or cause, one that has always been.
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.
‘By Definition a miracle can never happen.’ Discuss. Clearly the answer to this question depends on your definition of a miracle. The traditional understanding of a miracle involves the interruption of a Law of Nature, usually bearing deeper religious significance. ‘A transgression of a Law of Nature’ to quote Hume, suggests to many an impossible event and it is therefore immediately obvious why many agree that, ‘by definition, a miracle can never happen.’ However, it is interesting to note that Hume, in his famous argument against miracles, at no point implies that a miracle, by definition, can never happen. The basis of Hume’s attack is that there will never be sufficient empirical evidence to justify believing in a miracle.
Infalsafiable it may be I do not find it persuasive due one singular point of contention. I cannot find tenable any argument that is contingent on the existence of God or any divine spirit. Berkeley’s answer to his own admission of the likelihood of the continued existence of ideas over time is contingent on the existence of God or some sort of Divine perceiver. Berkeley’s theory presents God that is at all times perceiving. If, for lack of better terminology, God were to “turn his head” all that is not being perceived would cease to exist.