Classical Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Date
Classical Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God
The question of existence God has been, for a long time, the subject of debate in the philosophy of religion as well as the popular culture in the mainstream society. The arguments on the existence of God dates back to ancient philosophers such as Plato who had various contexts for their own basis of philosophizing. In this paper, I will be focusing on cosmology which is a paradigm in the conundrum of trying to explain the typical existence of God. I will utilize readings by Aquinas and Humes to come up with a well-outlined account on the cosmological perspective of the Existence of God.
The cosmological argument of the existence of God is posited to explain the existence and change in the world. Cosmology and philosophy in religion simply refer to an explanation of the origin, evolution and uncertainty and unanticipated fate of the universe. From ancient times, cosmology and religion shared a lot in Greek times. However, Greek cosmology deviated and moved away from astrological superstition spirits, magical powers and a picture of the universe which were beyond human explanation, understanding, and action (Burns, 2017). Religion motivated cosmological studies in Greece and Babylon, resultantly, Ptolemy propagated cosmology particularly concerning heavenly and divine things hence the existence of the universe was attributed to the existence of a presumably powerful and infinite supernatural being.
The universe, or the cosmos and its study render a challenge hence different perspectives of explanation have not succeeded in truly explaining its existence. With religion motivating the study of cosmos, many consider it as very valid due to the processes of epistemology and logic (Bobik, 1965). The reasoning in cosmology and religion supersedes other attempts to unravel clearly the force behind existence, contemporary changes, and eventually, the uncertain fate of the universe. Logical deductions and induction by Aquinas and Humes are some of the classical foundations on the cosmological argument of the existence of God.
Cosmological argument grounds itself in the phenomenon of the existence of the world with having the possibility of a presumably sole source and beginning of all things. Yes, the world exists, but it cannot explain its own existence; therefore, something else must account for it. There is “something else” which is self-sustained and self-existent and whose existence and not preceding is a mystery which is responsible for the existence of the world (Aquinas, 2017). So, the “something else should be developed through logical thinking regarding metaphysical aspects and must contain within itself the cause of its own existence. According to Thompson (1955, p. 284), such an unexplained reason which is contained in itself of its existence is God. This simple statement wraps up the cosmological argument of the existence of God into the world being not responsible for its own existence because nothing precedes itself and there is an extraordinary existence in or out of the universe responsible for the existence of the universe (Aquinas, 2017).
A cosmological argument can precisely be summarized into the following;
- A contingent being existed (a contingent being is such that if it exists, it cannot-exist)
- This contingent being has a cause or explanation of its existence.
- There is something else that is responsible for the contingent itself.
- What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
- Contingent beings alone cannot cause or explain the existence of a contingent being.
- Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a no contingent (necessary) being.
- Therefore, a necessary being (a being which, if it exists, cannot exist) exists.
The argument was made logically defensible and Strengthened when stated more precisely. Thomas Aquinas conceived five inclinations of evidence for God’s existence, the first three of which are cosmological. The third of these, the argument, has come to be explicitly known as the cosmological argument from contingency. Aquinas is obsessed with the fact that there exists something else which is responsible for the abstractions of the universe that has a beginning and an end, according to John (1974).
An observed fact According to Aquinas is that some things have a beginning and an ending. This specifically refers to the constituents and the entire universe. They, in turn, have the capability of either being or not being; that is, they are contingent but not necessary, they could not have had a beginning, nor could they have an end if necessary. There must, therefore, be an essential being to cause contingent beings; if not, nothing could exist (Klima, 2019).
A contingent being existed, and the being is caused either by itself or by another. If its existence is caused or contained in itself, or precisely if it were to precede itself, therefore, an impossible phenomenon. To that, this contingent being has an external cause to its existence, that is., depends on a source or something else for its existence. The phenomena of precision of being to another being which is not independent in being leads to having another being which is not contingent, and or can be contingent, a phenomenon which leads to infinity due to the recurrent of contingency and dependence. Contingent beings and a generalization are derived that a being that is contingent which does not necessarily exist; that is, it does not contain the cause of its existence within itself, but depends for its being upon one or more other things.
Basing on time and change, contingency is proved. Everything that exists is in the context of the time, and they are subject to change. Furthermore, if no change has occurred, then the time has not yet elapsed. Therefore, everything in nature changes. But everything that changes do so because it is affected by other things. If it contained its various forms altogether within itself, all these forms would exist at once, and thus no change could occur. Then, since everything that is therefore affected by other things is contingent, everything in nature is contingent (Thompson, 1955, pp. 312-318).
Since everything is preceded by another or basically is contingent, it must be caused by something else, in the same context when something or an item in being in the natural realm has a cause; the series continues from cause one to cause two which is are contingent if a cause was to be located, it means that there is an excellent possibility of having several causes and beings which are contingent. No being is independent in development and origin because it is always preceded by another and leads to a series of contingent beings.
Aquinas argues out his cosmological evidence and asserts that there can be no outcome without an efficient and apparent cause a pointer towards the contextual reality in the existence of the world that there is nothing that can be its sole cause which is useful despite the truth that the world is self-sustained and self-perpetuating. The third argument by Aquinas (2019) bases on necessity and possibility. According to this assertion by Aquinas, the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time, and it is possibly logical that it is going to exist for another endless amount of time.
Aquinas believes that at one point, everything was infinite, that is, it never existed, and there is no arguable proposition that anything begins to exist on its own. There must be something that was the cause of the existence of these creatures (Copleston, 1962). In this notion, Aquinas argues that the degree of perfection and goodness, which is evident in the world must have a beginning. Some existent self-caused it at a particular time. The ultimate cause of virtue and perfection that is being pursued in the world must be God. Similarly, there is something else which might be contingent which is responsible for evil and bad deeds i9j the world as depicted in the world today.
The cosmological argument is logically admissible and defendable as it not only seeks to explain and prove the existence of God but also reasons out and provides the meaning to life in the world (Gerstener, 1967). Therefore, it is notable about the existence of God, whether there was a first event in the universe or not. Nevertheless, if we have a clear cause of existence, then resultantly there is somewhere we are going to because of the existence of a source.
The cosmological argument has received various objections basing on its epistemological aspects as well as logical patterns. Infinite regress is very common and tends to deviate the beginning of the world from God. Aquinas presumption of a prime mover is objected because of the intelligibility of the infinite process of the universe. This argument is outdone basically for being atheist and not inclining itself on logic. Secondly, the Hume and causality are objected as the cause of the existence would be nothing more than an illusion. Criticisms about the nature of God have raised as well because the reason is considered to be contingent, there might exist other supreme being preceding God (Klima, 2019)
In my opinion, the logic in cosmological argument is valid and applicable, however, the aspect of contingency of the supreme being; God to some extent is invalid because there are no historical and philosophical accounts on causes or precisions of God who is the ultimate creator and any other thing should not precede sole source of the universe. God should also be self-existent and sustainable due to the divine nature. The question of the existence of God might not receive a concise answer because of the gaps in cosmological argument and weaknesses in its account.
The cosmological argument is in short terms an inclination to the existence of the earth and the universe as preceded by something which itself may also be preceded by something else. In a nutshell, it tries to argue out the existence of God with the assertion that nothing creates itself or precedes itself and secondly, there are an infinite beginning and end of the universe due to a myriad of logical arguments and epistemological bases. The cosmological base gives God the sole power of causing the existence of the world and clear evidence that God is existent.
References
Aquinas, T. (2017). The Cosmological argument. Readings in the philosophy of religion., 22
Bobik, Joseph (1965), Aquinas on Being and Essence: A Translation and Interpretation (South
Bend, IN Notre Dame University Press).
Burns, E. (2017). Arguments for the existence of the divine: a cosmological argument in what
is this thing called the philosophy of religion. (pp. 89-101)
Copleston, Frederick (1962), A History of Philosophy (Vol. II, Mediaeval Philosophy [Part 2],
Albert the Great to Duns Scotus) (Garden City, NY: Image Books), 2[2]:60.
Gerstner, John H. (1967), Reasons for Faith (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker). Mill, John Stewart
(1957), Theism (Indianapolis, IN Bobbs-Merrill). Miller, E.L. (1972), God and Reason (New York: Macmillan).
John D. (1974), “Kant’s Refutation of the Cosmological Argument,” Journal of the American
Academy of Religion, December.
Klima, G. (2019). Aquinas Real distinction and its role in the causal proof of Gods existence.
Roczniki filozivicne, 6794), 7-26.
Reichenbach, B. (2004). God exists Cosmological propagation by Aquinas.