In this essay, I am going to explore the key features of the Cosmological Argument. The Cosmological Argument is an argument that states that the universe is not explicable without reference to causes and factors outside itself. Although the Cosmological Argument was famously expressed as one of Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways (arguments for the existence it is grounded in the Greek metaphysics of Plato and Aristotle. Both argued that the fact of motion requires a mover. Aristotle once said, "The series must start with something for nothing can come from nothing".The key ideas are 'contingency' and 'necessity'.
To say of something that it exists is to also point to other factors that have influenced, and caused, it to exist. The major features of the Cosmological Argument are that; the universe is contingent, things come into existence because something has caused them to happen, things are caused to exist, but they do not have to exist, there is an infinite chain of causes, and time began with the creation of the universe.There must have been a first cause, which brought the universe into existence and therefore this first cause must have necessary existence to cause the contingent universe. It is considered that God has aseity and in turn concludes that God is the first cause of the contingent universe's existence The Cosmological Argument has taken many forms and has been presented in many ways. In each form, the argument focuses upon the causes that lead to the existence of things.
The Cosmological Argument is not just a Christian attempt to prove the existence of the classical theistic deity.Plato and Aristotle postulated the need for an artisan and a cause of all things. St. Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274); who was a theologian, Aristotelian scholar, and philosopher offered the most famous Christian application of the Cosmological Argument. Called the Doctor Angelicus (the Angelic Doctor,) Aquinas is considered one the greatest Christian philosophers to have ever lived. Thomas Aquinas proposed five ways that "proved" the existence of God, the first three ways are Cosmological Arguments the fourth is a form of ontological argument and the fifth is a form of a teleological argument.
The first way, the unmoved mover is formally expressed as 'everything that is in motion is moved by something else' and therefore states that infinite regress is impossible. This provides the theory that there must be a first mover. Aquinas was speaking of motion in the broadest sense. He included not only movement from one place to another, but also movement in the sense of change of quality or quantity. According to Aquinas, an object only moved when an external force was applied to it.
Aquinas wasn't arguing that the universe necessarily had a beginning.He thought it did, but said that you cannot reason that out as it was revealed doctrine. Rather his emphasis was on dependency. Swinburne took up the same argument of dependency in the twentieth century.
The second way, the uncaused causer, can be summarised as 'every effect has a cause'. Infinite regress is impossible; therefore, there must be a first cause. Put differently it means everything that happens has a cause. The cause itself has a cause.
Something cannot cause itself for this would mean it proceeded itself and this is impossible i. e. here needs to be an uncaused object, suggesting the idea of God, to create the cause.One of the main differences between these two ways is that in the first, attention is centred on the fact that things are acted upon, whereas in the second, the attention is on things as agents (doing the acting upon).
The first cause sees God as a factual necessity as the causal explanation to the universe. This means that God is seen as a being of whom is not dependant on any other for his existence, where as the second argument sees God as a logically necessary being.The third way, possibility, and necessity gives the idea that some contingent beings exist. If any contingent beings exist then a necessary being must exist, therefore a necessary being could namely be God. Aquinas believed anything that had a property was a being; the world consists of contingent items that are beings that are generated and perish. If all beings were contingent then at one time nothing would have existed.
This is because there would have been a time prior to the coming into the existence of contingent beings.By saying the universe is contingent; the argument means that the universe is dependent on something that created it. Many people believe the something that created it was God, however other people such as Bertrand Russell, a British philosopher (1872 - 1970) say "the universe is just there and that's all there is to say". By the argument saying that things come into existence because something has caused them to happen, refers to what I previously touched on earlier in the form of 'everything must have a beginning'.By the argument saying that things are caused to exist, but they do not have to exist, means everything has to be created, but there is not always a reason for creating it. There is a chain of causes that goes back to the beginning of time people argue that the universe started with the beginning of time so we don't actually know what caused the universe to exist.
Many religious people argue that God created the universe and time so there will not be any links to show actually prove what created the universe.If time began with the creation of the universe, then one cannot discover what created our universe because everything we know is based on time so we cannot truly discover what created it, however religious people use this factor to produce the idea that God created the universe. Scientists cannot disprove this theory because they do not have enough evidence on either side. On the other hand, J. L. Mackie gives a good explanation, similar to that of Aquinas', to explain the Prime Mover.
She says that there are a series of hooks hanging from each other.The first hook is attached to a wall (God). If the wall is removed, the chain of cause and effect collapses. If there are an infinite number of hooks, then the first cannot be removes as there is no beginning. Therefore, the chain would not have begun in the first place without something for the first hook to be attached to, leading to the idea of a Primary Mover, or Uncaused Causer.
There must have been a first cause, which brought the universe into existence as Aquinas argued everything is a contingent being so therefore the universe must have had a first cause which created it.Some scientists believe the Big Bang is responsible for the creation, however this does not account for the beginning of time, which produces the many other arguments stated above. The argument is successful to an extent as it provides answers to questions that scientists cannot answer e. g. what created time and the universe at the same time? However the argument is very narrow minded as it only looks at Aquinas's point of view, yet takes on criticisms from other philosophers such as David Hume, Immanuel Kant and as previously mentioned Bertrand Russell.
However the argument still leaves many questions unanswered about what happened after the universe was created, such as the question of the role of God once he created the universe, and whether he not only created the universe but continues to sustain it. Another is that the law of the conservation of energy within the universe means that God could not be continually putting energy into the world, yet following the Cosmological Argument, he must have created it in the first place, as energy cannot be created from nothing.If God cannot be the cause for everything then this leads to the notion of deism in that God has had to withdraw from the world and merely observe it from a distance; no one knows. In conclusion, the Cosmological Argument is one of the main factors we need to consider if we wanted to try to explain the beginning of the universe, however the argument still leaves many questions answered so on that extent the argument isn't very useful as it doesn't finish what it started, as well as it could be perceived as being rather contradictory in parts.Many people are content to believe that God created the universe whereas others are content to believe that the universe was created by the Big Bang, however, there is still a percentage whom are not satisfied with the arguments they have heard and are still striving to find an answer.
