The 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.

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

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.

Paul Edward wrote an article, A Critique of Cosmological Argument which emphasizes his critics on Aquinas’ Five Ways. He argues on the argument of the existence of First Cause – a member which is not itself caused by any prior members claimed by Thomas Aquinas. Paul argues that even the argument is strong and sound, it doesn’t proves the existence of God; people can perceives it as the existence of super-powerful being. If finite being exist in the form of infinite being. We as human logically demands that infinite being to be rational, omnipotent, immaterial and eternal because that’s how God is defined – a Necessary Being. Edwards also does not acknowledge the argument regarding to an infinite series. To suppose that there is infinite series of

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).

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

Frederick Copleston was a priest, and historian of philosophy who supported Aquinas’ rejection of infinite regress. Copleston reformulated the argument by concentrating on contingency, which he discussed in depth during a radio debate with Bertrand Russell in 1947. Copleston, like Aquinas, argued that there are things in the universe which are contingent, for example, us – we would not have existed if our parents had not met. All things in the world are similar to this, nothing in the world is self-explanatory, and everything depends on something else for its existence. Therefore, we are forced to search for an external explanation. The explanation must lead us to a cause which is self explanatory, i.e. one which contains within itself, the reason for its own existence – a necessary being. The conclusion must be God. Copleston argues that if we don’t accept the existence of an ‘unmoved mover’, like Aquinas suggested, there is no explanation for the universe at all. Copleston believes the universe is gratuitous without a first cause, because without an explanation, nothing has meaning – “Everything is gratuitous. This garden, this city, and myself; when you suddenly realise it, it makes you feel sick and everything begins to drift… that’s nausea”.

It is certainly plausible to believe that there is in infinite series of contingent overlapping things in the universe so there is no need for a necessary being. Aquinas is making a clear connection between the argument from contingency and the argument from causation, so some of the criticisms still apply. Aquinas is relying on reduction ad absurdium to prove that infinite regress is impossible but Aquinas may not understand what infinite regress is. Certainly, a finite series would need to come to an end with an unmoved mover but an infinite series would just never reach an

From this theory, Aquinas believes there must have been an unmoved mover which is God who sets things in motion. It is certain and evident that in the world some things are set in motion. Whatever is in motion is put in motion by another. Therefore, by which it is put in motion must also be put in motion by another and by another again but this cannot go for infinity because

Aquinas was a Catholic priest who tried to prove the existence of God using his five cosmological arguments. I disagree with the validity of these arguments. The arguments presented by Aquinas are questionable and most certainly do not prove the existence of the Christian God.

Aquinas first draws on facts about motion stating that things are in motion and always changing. “Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another.” A thing is either hot or potentially hot –nothing can be made hot by itself therefore if a thing can become warmer, it was changed by something that is actually hot. “It is therefore impossible that . . . a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself” .

Aquinas studied Aristotle’s observation that nothing can move on its own. Everything that moves in this universe is moved by something else. This is proven by the fact that “things move when potential motion becomes actual motion” and “nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect, therefore nothing can move itself” (Gracyk1). For James Kidd gives an example a movement in his article, Five Ways or Five Proofs. Kidd explains that an eight ball moves by a cue balls which moves by a pool cue, which in turn moves by the player.

Therefore the First Cause argument stipulates that there must be something that caused the cause that caused the beginning of the universe. Aquinas' states that one can follow the long chain of effects and causes till one reaches

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.

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.