Philosophy of Religion

935 Words4 Pages
The Cosmological argument argues for the existence of God a posteriori based on the apparent order in the universe. For Aristotle, the existence of the universe needs an explanation, a cause, as it could not have come from nothing. Nothing comes from nothing so since there is something, there must have been some other thing that is its cause. Aristotle rules out an infinite progression of causes, so, that led to the conclusion that there must be a First Cause. Likewise with motion, there must have been a first cause; Aristotle calls this the ‘Prime Mover’. There is a God, says Aristotle -for how else does motion begin? Whilst this argument does generally offer some support for the existence of God, it does not prove his existence. Aquinas…show more content…
Thus, Hume claimed that it is not possible to prove the existence of a being who is unknowable and existentially different from all other beings. A further argument against the cosmological argument is presented by Anthony Kenny. According to his analysis, the cause of change must possess a property which will initiate the change. For example, for something to become hot, the thing that causes the change must itself possess the property of heat. But modern science rejects this argument, for instance, microwaves can generate heat without themselves being hot. Therefore, it is not foolhardy to argue that the universe exists and as a result of highly finely-tuned probabilities, from simple compounds to what we see today. But still, Descartes reconstruction of the argument seems to postulate that, the cause of change must possess a property which will initiate the change, which is in direct conflict with Kenny’s point. Yet, Aquinas says Kenny is not giving a straightforward metaphysical analysis, but an analysis which presumes a standard, and also doubtful physics. Overall, the cosmological argument, while making a good attempt to prove the existence of God is largely unsuccessful chiefly because it makes huge empirical assumptions. Firstly, it assumes that the world does, in fact, exist. And secondly, we cannot prove that a world exists on the basis of a posteriori premises, therefore cannot infer from it that it has a cause, and
Open Document