The cosmological argument

This argument is closely linked to Aquinas' teleological argument.

Details of this argument

📎 The Cosmological Argument is an inductive argument that aims to prove the existence of God based on the existence of the Cosmos. It is also an A Posteriori argument because it is based on experience. This is a natural theology approach, as it uses rational, scientific evidence of the world to prove God's existence.

Including reference to: Aquinas' first three ways

First way- Argument from motion - The unmoved mover (This is essentially the same as the prime mover)

Premise 1: Everything in the world is in a state of motion, all things move from potentiality to actuality

Premise 3: Things are caused to move by other things

Premise 4: We cannot have an infinite regress

God is the moved mover as if he was moved who moved him (as Aquinas believes no one God is actuality). As infinite regression can take place (according to Aquinas), something has to be at the start. This is God.

The Second Way- Argument from causation - The Uncaused Causer

Premise 1: Everything in the world is caused to exist

Premise 2: Nothing can cause its own existence

Premise 3: We cannot have an infinite regress of causes

The Third Way – Argument from Contingency - Possibility and Necessity

Premise 1: All things in existence have contingent existence (relay on something else for existence e.g food, parents)

Premise 2: At some point in the past all contingent beings would not have existed

Premise 3: Something cannot come from nothing

Premise 4: There must be a necessary being that started this chain off.

Strengths of the Cosmological Argument

• The argument focuses on the nature of things for an ultimate explanation.
• The conclusions achieve more than arguments from causation, it establishes God's necessity.
• Infinite regress and motion need an explanation.
• Justification for the theory relies on the belief that infinite regress is impossible.

Weaknesses of the Cosmological Argument

• The fallacy of composition: Hume and Russell argue that just because something is true of a part, it does not mean it is true of the whole. However: copleston would argue that contingency arguments don't appear to make a leap between parts and a whole.
• Russell: Scientists may look for causes, but they do not assume there is one.
• Hume: Hume rejects the possibility of a necessary being.
• Aquinas argues that infinite regress is impossible however Hume would argue that just because infinite regress is hard to imagine, it does not mean it is impossible.
• Physics shows that something can come from nothing
• If the world is infinite, it doesn't need a creator.