The Cosmological Argument The basics

Background The argument states that the universe requires a cause and an explanation: God. ‘Cosmological’ comes from cosmos (Greek for world); it is concerned with the cause of the world. The argument is a posteriori (based on experience), inductive (probabilistic) and synthetic (requiring evidence, not purely logical). Perhaps the first cosmological argument was that of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, who claimed that there must be a ‘Prime Mover’ – the original source of motion in our world.

Thomas Aquinas

Saint Thomas Aquinas A 13th century theologian from Italy. Aquinas looks back to Aristotle. He gives three cosmological arguments. These form the first three of his famous Five Ways – five proofs for God. These are taken from his great work Summa Theologica.

The First Way This is the argument from motion, taken directly from Aristotle: All moving things have a source of motion. There must have been some original source of motion, unmoved by anything else. This we call God, the ‘unmoved mover’.

The Second Way This is the argument from causality: Everything which exists must have a cause of its existence. There cannot be an infinite chain of causes stretching back into the past. There must have been some first cause uncaused by anything else. This we call God, the ‘uncaused cause’.

The Third Way This is the argument from contingency. Everything which exists is dependent on something else for its existence and might at some stage not exist (it is contingent). At one stage, everything did not exist. There must be some thing dependent on nothing else for its existence, the source of all contingent things. This we call God, who must exist.

How do I write a paragraph on Aquinas? Mention his Five Ways and his debt to Aristotle. Distinguish between the three arguments he gives, giving a sentence or two to explain each one. Make sure that you use the key terms. Practice makes perfect – redraft the paragraph and time yourself for speed.

Criticisms of Aquinas His statement that all things have a cause of their existence or motion seems to be contradicted by the claim that God is uncaused. Why make an exception? The argument may prove that the universe has a cause, but not that this is God. It certainly doesn’t prove God’s attributes/ Hume – there is no absurdity in suggesting that some events do not have a cause.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

al Ghazali The Muslim scholar who (among others) developed the Kalam argument. He questioned the concept of infinity. Here are some questions: In an infinite library, which would be greater – the total number of books or the number of books with green spines? If we borrowed a book from an infinite library, would the total number of books decrease?

So… al Ghazali argued that ‘actual infinities’ are impossible. It then follows that the universe cannot be infinite. It must have had a beginning and cause of its existence. This would be God.

William Lane Craig He has developed a modern form of the argument: The universe had a beginning. That beginning was caused. That cause was probably personal (making the choice to create). Therefore God exists.

Criticisms of Craig The universe might be infinite (steady state theory, etc.). The cause of the universe might not have involved any deliberate choice; it might have been entirely impersonal.

Evaluation

Strengths of the Argument a posteriori and inductive: it is based on ideas we can observe and verify – objects have causes, the universe began. Most scientists would agree that the universe had a beginning (Big Bang). It is natural to ask why the universe began, and science has not yet answered this. Copleston – if all things have a cause, surely it makes sense for the universe to have a cause.

Criticisms/Weaknesses Immanuel Kant – causality may be something imposed on experiences by the mind; it is not truly real. So, it can only apply to things we experience, which does not include the creation of the universe. All the argument proves is a cause. It fails to prove the existence of God in traditional terms: loving, powerful, etc. Russell: The universe is just here and that is all; we don’t need to ask why. It is “a brute fact”.

Bertrand Russell Frederick Copleston

Something to think about… It may be the case that some cosmological arguments are stronger than others. Think carefully about the concept of causality – does this have to apply to all objects? Can it apply to the universe? Can we say that God has no cause? Also, think about links with the design argument – what strengths and weaknesses do they share?