Essay on Critique of Aquinas's Cosmological Argument

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.

Everything in the universe is dependant on something else which means that once there was a time when nothing existed. This means that the being which created the universe must have been external to it and also must be a necessary being, aka, must have always existed. Aquinas continued to argue that this necessary being is God and that if God didn’t exist, nothing else would. This logically explains the existence of the universe without it

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

In an attempt to justify the existence of God, Christian Philosopher, St Thomas Aquinas, has developed an argument which derived from his observation of the physical world. He evidently observed that everything in the universe is moving and that which is moving is certain that it must have been moved by something else which has also been moved by something else. However, he realizes that by tracing back who has caused the very first movement, he believes that there must

Aquinas’ argument is contradicted by a previously learned concept called Ockham’s Razor, which focuses on the simplest reasoning without any assumptions. The text from Summa Theologica contradicts this by creating the idea of an eternal God to explain the universe. The simplest idea would be to believe that the universe is eternal itself, rather than creating an exterior being. The idea behind Ockham’s Razor is that the simplest answer is the most easily testable and most likely. Where did the idea of God creating the universe even begin? This concept is far more complex than simply the universe created itself.

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.

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).

it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist and thus even nothing would be in existence, which is absurd. Therefore we cannot but admit the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of God”. He is saying that all living creatures depend on something else for its survival.

1. The first objection to the existence of God is the proponent of the Cosmological Argument makes the mistake of the collection of dependent beings as it itself one big depended

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

One famous objection to Aquinas' argument is put forward by Paul Edwards (1923-2004) in his work titled A Critique of the Cosmological Argument (1959). I will begin by briefly restating Aquinas' argument and then I will summarize Edward's objection to Aquinas' argument and Aquinas' response. I will conclude my paper

In critiquing the article written by William Lane Craig title “The Cosmological Argument” let me first define how some define the cosmological argument. In reading about the cosmological argument it is basically an argument that begins with the existence of the universe and tries to prove God’s existence. Thomas Aquinas said it this way, (1) “everything in the universe is moved by something else. Unless we can go back in time forever, with things being constantly moved by something else, there must be a point where movement started.” (Godwin) Aquinas goes on to say, “there must be a Prime mover that began movement in the Universe, when there was nothing, and this is God.” (Godwin) In the bible, it states, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty,

Throughout Meditation III of Descartes’s Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes illustrates the existence of a perfect God through his Cosmological Argument. I will begin with a description of Descartes’s Cosmological Argument, followed by an evaluation of the invalidity of the argument rooted in the limitations of the pre-containment principle. I will then offer various interpretations of the principle in an attempt to construct a premise that would allow Descartes to validly prove the existence of God. I will conclude by examining the potential of the Kalam Cosmological Argument in proving the existence of a Creator.

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.

The first argument derives from motion. This argument holds incredible significance for the following reasons, including that St. Thomas Aquinas inadvertently draws attention to the connection between how modern day science lends legitimate evidence, to the creation story, suggesting a degree of accuracy.Thomas Aquinas states the following “It is certain and evident to our senses that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality towards which is in motion”(CTR p. 335). Despite the fact that St. Thomas Aquinas lived an estimated 400 years before the great scientist Sir Isaac Newton and his laws of physics, he had a relatively accurate concept of what motion is and its nature in regards to the world around us. After all, motion, or movement, is the active changing of physical location, state, or position (Merriam Webster). If one refers to its physical science definition, the term of “motion” becomes a little more complex but remains relevant: motion is the conversion of one form of energy to another form of energy, such as potential energy changing to kinetic energy (Encyclopedia Britannica). Everything in existence has energy to some degree, whether it is potential or kinetic and all matter is made of energy according to Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. With this in mind, according to