The cosmological argument

The word “cosmos” means universe. The cosmological argument argues the existence of a first cause, God, from a posteriori and priori premise. It argues that the universe is contingent and therefore requires a cause, as nothing is the cause of itself. This is known as redicto- ad- absurdum. The argument is backed up by the five ways put forward by the 12th century theologian and philosopher, St Thomas Aquinas.
In the 12th century, St Thomas Aquinas put forward 5 ways to prove the existence of God in his book “Summa Theologica”. Aquinas’s five ways to prove the existence of God are based on the work of Greek philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, whose work was later translated in Arabic, by Muslim philosophers Al- Kindi and Al- Ghazali, and then translated into Latin. I will be examining three of Aquinas’ ways, uncaused cause, unmoved mover and necessary being. As well as examining these three ways to prove the existence of God, I will be looking at their supporters and critics.
Aquinas’ 1st way to prove the existence of God was the uncaused cause also known as the first cause. Aquinas considers the world in terms of “cause and effect” which means that without a cause there is no effect. Everything in the universe has a cause. Human beings have a cause (their parents) too. Aquinas argued that we could follow the chain of “cause and effect” all the way back, but there cannot be an infinite chain. There must be an uncaused cause, which causes everything to happen without itself being caused. This uncaused cause is God. God does not require a cause by nature so and can therefore be understood as the “uncaused cause”.
Aquinas’ 2nd way identified that everything that moves is moved by something else. Everything has a mover; nothing has the power to move itself. Like the “cause and effect” chain, there cannot be an infinite chain of movers as this is impossible. Therefore there must be an unmoved mover who has the power to start the chain of motion. This unmoved mover is what we call God.
Aquinas’ 3rd way to prove the existence of god was necessary being and contingency. Aquinas argued that ordinary things start to exist and later stop existing – they are all contingent. At some point none of them were in existence to have later existed. However, something can only come into existence by being caused by something else that already existed, linking back to the “cause and effect” chain. Therefore, there must a powerful being whose existence is necessary, for things to exist, and is not limited by time. The only being powerful enough to fit this role is God.
Over the centuries, this classical argument has gained many supporters who have put forward many views to back the cosmological argument. As well as gaining supporters, Aquinas’ theory gained a lot of criticism. The three supporters I will be examining are Copleston, Leibniz and Craig and the three critics, of Aquinas’ argument, I will be examining are Kant, Russell and Hume.
Fredrick Copleston was a Professor in the University of London. He is known to be one of the strongest supporters of the cosmological argument. In 1947 a famous BBC radio debate took place between Copleston and Bertrand Russell, over the cosmological argument. Copleston supported Aquinas’ rejection of “infinite regress”. He went on to state, “everything depends on something before it and since I am not the cause of myself, this universe is not the cause of itself, since I have a mother, this universe must have a mother”. Copleston also stated “If everything within the world requires something else to exist, the cause of the entire universe must be external to the universe. The explanation must be a being whose existence is self-explanatory. This is known as necessary being.

On the other hand, Russell argued back by saying “The universe is just there, that is all”. He argued that the universe is neither contingent nor non- contingent. Russell suggested that just because it is necessary for human beings to have mothers to exist, the same does not apply to the universe. He also went on to argue that if the universe needs to have an explanation then so does the existence of God.

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz was a German philosopher. Leibniz came up with a different way of tackling the problem with infinite regress, known as sufficient reason. He questioned, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” He argued that there must be a reason for the existence of the universe. There must be a being that can create existence for a sufficient reason for the existence of the universe. That being is God.

However, Immanuel Kant, a well-known 18th century German philosopher, criticized Leibniz’ argument. Kant’s main objection was that the cosmological argument was working with a God who exists “by definition”. He said that the end of the argument rests on a God who “by definition” is eternal. This evades many contradictions and is not sound reasoning.
William Lane Craig is an American philosopher. Using The Kalam argument, Craig came up with the formula that everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. The universe began to exist. Therefore the universe has a cause of existence and cannot have come about by chance but rather by an external agent, God.
David Hume was an 18th century Scottish philosopher. He was known to be one of the most famous critics of the cosmological argument, as he believed that there is a logical jump that the argument fails to recognise.
Hume maintained that we do not have experience of universes being made so we cannot possibly argue from causes within the universe to causes of the universe as a whole. Hume also argued that Aquinas contradicted himself a lot. Aquinas stated that everything had a cause except God. Hume stated that if everything has a cause then God too must have a cause. God cannot be an exception to the rule, as this would make the rule invalid.
In conclusion, I think that the strengths and weaknesses of the argument are equally balanced, as both have strong points. The point of “cause and effect” is one of the strongest points of the argument as nothing is the cause of itself, therefore supporting the existence of God. However, to say it is God is, as Hume states, is a “leap in logic”. Also Craig’s argument that God must exist for the universe to exist, as you cannot get something out of nothing, is very strong but on the other hand, Russell’s Brute fact that “the universe is just there, that is all”, is also reasonable to accept. Therefore, my opinion is that the strengths and weaknesses of the cosmological argument are equally balanced.