Cosmology Argument About the Existence of God

Introduction

The existence of God is an issue that has been discussed, and many thoughts, as well as, arguments have been established. Perfect examples of philosophers that are often referred to include Aristotle, Stephen Hawkins and Thomas Aquinas. The controversy tends to emerge as theorists and scientists attempt to offer an alternative viewpoint regarding the existence of God. Ideally, the triggering point that triggers the need to establish the essence and existence of God comes hand in hand with the assertions that existence is a questionable aspect in life, hence bringing it upon the God figure in the universe[1]. The paper seeks to reflect on Aquinas’s cosmological argument about God’s existence, reflecting on the key points of understandings or premises within which the theory is established, the strengths and weaknesses of the argument. The argument by Aquinas provides five ways that explain that God exists primarily stating that God is one transcendent, and uncaused creator of the universe which have a series of strengths and weaknesses justifying the acceptability level of the argument by Aquinas that God Exists.

The cosmological argument about the existence of God is derived from Aristotle’s approach to existence. It is an argument that proceeds from the deliberations regarding the existence, as well as, the order in the universe. Aristotle believed that one could easily learn about the world and the existence of things in the universe by merely making observations[2]. Hence, he sought to observe the things that surrounded him in a bid to establish and gain a clearer view of what the world is all about. It is from this ideology that the concept of cosmological reflection is derived where the sense in data and observation is reflected upon. Logos, one of Aristotle’s persuasion technique provides a suggestion that studying the manner or the way things are. Hence, the cosmological argument seeks to conduct or review the order of things for one to define the existence or absence of God. Pursuant to Aristotle, the being of the universe. It is an argument that is closely linked or said to have originated from the Big Bang Theory where a single event originates from a single point.

The first argument is referred to as the argument from motion. Here Aquinas provides an observation that out of the things that one observes, everything has been put in motion. Hence, nothing has the capacity to put itself into motion. This argument operates from the axiom that if a given thing is already in motion, it is indisputable that someone or a given force has put it into that motion[3]. Aquinas further stated that the endless list of the things that are in motion and the things that are cause these things to gain the status of being in motion cannot be right. According to him, in the infinite regression of things in motion and those that caused it to be in that state create an opportunity to explain the motion that is in existence. An attempt to travel backwards in the cause-effect relationship that exists between motion and things that are in motion ascertains that indeed, there was an origin point from which this chain of relationships commenced. This relationship, therefore, have a starting point. It is from this angle that the existence of God is reflected upon. At a given time, things were caused to move after which the infinite regression has been experienced. This initial of First Cause is also named as the unmoved mover. This is a term that, from Aquinas understanding, should be used to refer to God. He is termed as ‘unmoved’ since he did not have any force behind him explaining the origin of God. Thus, for Aquinas, the concept of motion brought about the movement of every other thing in the world by God.

There is a close link between the second way and third way of explaining cosmology in defining the existence of God. According to Aquinas, everything that exists in the Universe is contingent. Thus, the universe, in its entirety, is contingent. Aquinas attempt to argue that all the things that exist are contingent. That is; they did not exist essentially in the past. further, they may not exist in the future. In fact, it may be difficult for them to ever exist at any other time. According to Aquinas, applying this logic – everything that everything that existed before does not exist – means that there was a time when there was nothing in the universe that existed[4]. Hence, it is indisputable that there must exist something for there to be existence. Since Aquinas already believes that infinite regression is impossible, the existence of some entity resulted in the existence of other necessities. That entity, according to Aquinas, refers to God. In consideration of the fact that at one time nothing contingent was in existence, there was a non-contingent being that then caused the existence of other things.

The cosmology argument has strengths, as well as, weaknesses. Below is an overview of the strengths and weaknesses of the argument:

Strengths

First, the argument can be termed as a posteriori kind of argument. That is because most of the assertions are entirely based some empirical evidence. The evidence is often derived via the sense of observation. Observing the tendencies in the natural world around us influences the belief of existence and contingency of things. That feasibly provides a realistic argument that God exists. Secondly, the argument makes it easy to explain the existence of God. Through Aquinas’ argument, it becomes easy to perfectly possible to explain the cause of the universe. God is the cause of the universe according to Aquinas. That makes it illogical to disregards this kind of an explanation in search of a more complicated explanation. Thirdly, the argument supports the common argument that that regression infinity is unlikely. The infinity regression of matter is most often unlikely. Hence, the cosmological argument offers a significantly posteriori explanation for the said alternative. Hence, overall, it is logical and simple to understand.

Weaknesses

One of the weaknesses is that cosmological regression is quite inconsistent in explaining the notion of necessary being or existence. The argument that everything has to have a cause for it to exist is inconsistent with the argument and idea of uncaused being. The argument that there is one uncaused thing or being yet the argument still indicates that everything ought to have a cause fails to make sense[5]. Ideally, everything must have a cause or everything must not have a cause for the inconsistency to be eliminated. Ultimately, since God is not supposed to be governed or influenced by the laws of the universe, it would be irrational to argue that he is bound by time and space in infinity and the universe respectively. Hence, it is necessary to acknowledge that God cause be his own cause.

Assessment of The Argument

Ideally, the Cosmological argument is one of the most dynamic arguments that tends to explain the existence of God. The premises employed to explain the existence of God are intensively easy to refer to. Irrespective of the argument that there is a weakness in terms of inconsistency with regards to cause-effect relationship between God and the universe. The fact that there has to be a cause for the existence of items or things is indisputable. The superiority of God being the original creator is sufficient to explain why He is considered to be the un-caused cause in the universe. Aquinas’ concept of creating a break in time and existence is equally outstanding. The assumption that what existed in the past may not exist today and will certainly not exist tomorrow is one true concept about nature. Most specifically, most things and creatures in the universe have a time line. That implies that God possesses the infinity of existence while other creatures have a short life after being caused to exist. However, the argument has a weakness since it seems to be skewed towards the Christianity religion. As a result, that calls for a larger section of the audience to question the logic of the argument. Ideally, it could have been important to consider the arguments poised by other creation stories before making an inference making God the cause of existence without supporting the argument with a wide array of concepts regarding the universe and its being.  

Bibliography

“The Cosmological Argument.” Website for Queensborough Community College. Accessed May 11, 2021. https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/Chapter%203%20Religion/Cosmological.htm#:~:text=Thus%2C%20a%20cosmological%20argument%20for,not%20have%20come%20from%20nothing.

Carroll, William E. “Aquinas and contemporary cosmology: Creation and beginnings.” In Georges Lemaître: Life, Science and Legacy, pp. 75-88. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012.

Rowe, William L. The cosmological argument. Fordham University Press, 1975.

Romero, Gustavo E., and Daniela Pérez. “New remarks on the

CosmologicalArgument.” International journal for philosophy of religion 72, no. 2 (2012): 103-113.

[1] “The Cosmological Argument.” Website for Queensborough Community College. Accessed May 11, 2021.

[2] Rowe, William L. The cosmological argument. Fordham University Press, 1975.

[3] CosmologicalArgument.” International journal for philosophy of religion 72, no. 2 (2012): 103-113.

[4] CosmologicalArgument.” International journal for philosophy of religion 72, no. 2 (2012): 103-113.

[5] Carroll, William E. “Aquinas and contemporary cosmology: Creation and beginnings.” In Georges Lemaître: Life, Science and Legacy, pp. 75-88. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012.

Order your Copy Today