Philosophy of Religion

The Cosmological argument asks the question Where did everything come from? For everything we live with today there is a time in history when it did not exist. If it did not exist at some point then it would need to be created by someone else or something else. Therefore, there would have to be something or someone that was existent first and did not need to be created. This someone or something that Saint Thomas Aquinas refers to is

In my understanding of the Cosmological Argument I would have to say that I agree the most with Clarke’s explanation. Not only is it short and sweet but it almost takes Aquinas’ argument and folds it up and puts it in its pocket. I think believe it is much clearer for anyone to see and admit that everything that happens in this world is connected and caused by previous events and decisions. Due to this anyone can go back to the story of Adam and Eve and ask themselves the question of what caused these two? It is at this point where one is forced to admit that there is an “unmoved mover”, an independent being, and an uncaused cause who is called God.

In this essay, I will be arguing against Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument that every motion can only be traced back to the creator of all motions and ultimately, the universe. First I will present Aquinas’ Cosmological argument regarding motion which directly concludes that a higher being, who is not dependent on the motion of any other thing or being, must exist to have caused the existence of the universe. I will also present opponents of this argument such as David Hume who argues that a “First Mover” might not even be needed to exist but rather that an infinite regress could be the explanation of the universe and that no explanation for what initiated this infinite chain of motions is required. Finally, I will disclose my personal opinion on the issue of how all of existence began. My standpoint will be much more inclined toward Hume’s argument against Aquinas but I will be presenting a new idea with a lot of scientific backup that neither of them could have possibly taken into account at the time.

Typically, cosmological arguments occur in two different phases. The first phase’s purpose is to provide the premise that there is a ‘first cause’ or an

Thomas Aquinas’s cosmological argument is a posteriori argument that Aquinas uses to prove the existence of God. Aquinas argues that, “Nothing can move itself, so whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this causal loop cannot go on to infinity, so if every object in motion had a mover, there must be a first mover which is the unmoved mover, called God.” (Aquinas, Question 2, Article 3). I do agree with Aquinas’s cosmological argument in proving the existence of God with several reasons.

McCloskey also claims that the cosmological argument “does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause.

The cosmological argument is an a posteriori argument which intends to prove that there is an intelligent being that exists; the being is distinct from the universe, explains the existence of the universe, and is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent. The basic notion of cosmological arguments is that the world and everything in it is dependent on something other than itself for its existence. It explains that everything has a cause, that there must have been a first cause, and that this first cause was itself uncaused.

The goal of the cosmological argument is to support the claim that God exists as the first cause of the universe. According to Nagel, the argument runs as following:

The cosmological argument thus provides us with the grounds to believe in the existence of a “beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, Personal Creator of the Universe” (Craig). This explanation can point to none other than

William Lane Craig puts forth an argument for the existence of God in Kalam’s Cosmological Argument. In this, Craig argues that the universe began to exist and the cause of the universe’s existence must have been God. Kalam’s Cosmological Argument is trying to demonstrate the impossibility of an actual infinite, which states that the universe is eternal – it has always been here. Kalam’s Cosmological Argument goes as such: Whatever begins to exist has a cause – The universe began to exist – Therefore, the universe has a cause. And this cause is God.

The existence of God as puzzled minds for many years. Philosophers have argued that god may or may not exist to the human mind or that there can be more than one type of god. Our ways of thinking have gradually expanded over the years and it has allowed us to make more complex ideas on lost history but there is still some questionable knowledge on whether there is a god or not. We as humans could be missing valid information to find the correct answer.  Cosmological argument refers to existence of a unique being, generally identified with or referred to as God, is deduced or inferred as highly probable from facts concerning causation, change, ect in the respect of the universe as a whole within in. My question lies, what put that there? It

The Cosmological Argument has several forms, but is essentially a proof for the existence of the God of classical theism. It investigates to respond to the human wonder for answers to questions like “who created the universe?” It is an a posteriori argument, meaning that it is based on our experience of the world around us. The argument has been around for many years, but it was St. Thomas Aquinas in his book ‘Summa Theologica’ who established the argument as we know it today. Aquinas had five proofs for the existence of God, of which three are cosmological; they are the First Cause Argument, the Prime Mover Argument and the Argument from Contingency.

This week's reading sparked memories of my childhood where I asked questions like "what is the last number in the world?", or "who is God's mom?", and getting the answer, "infinity", or "he is his own mom", was beyond my understanding. However, the three different arguments for God's existence are not beyond my understanding and although I agree in some measure, these arguments can be easily grasped. Cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments can be summarized as: because "this", God exists. Cosmological arguments state that because the universe exists, so does God. Most philosophers with this argument agreed that the universe did not just appear and something had to create it. Teleological arguments follow the same premise whereas

A cosmological argument focuses on the notion of causation and that everything in the universe including us must have an initial cause, for nothing comes from nothing. Thomas

I believe that that the Cosmological argument gives good reason to believe in the existence of God. The Cosmological argument focuses on everything having a cause except one thing that started it all, this starter is known as the “Prime Mover”. The Prime Mover is the one that starts everything without anything having a previous effect on it. With that people have assumed that the logical answer to who the prime mover is, is God. This to me seems the most logical of arguments because although there is the idea of eternity and an eternal cycle there has to be a starting point. I do not believe the argument is successful.