The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God

The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God

The cosmological argument seeks to prove the existence of God by

looking at the universe. It is an A posteriori proof based on

experience and the observation of the world not logic so the outcome

is probable or possible not definite. The argument is in three forms;

motion, causation and being. These are also the first three ways in

the five ways presented by Aquinas through which he believed the

existence of God could be shown. Aquinas regarded Aristotle as the

principal philosopher so many of these concepts originate in the

thinking of Aristotle.

One example of the cosmological argument is the argument of causation.

Everything has a cause. Everything itself has a cause. But, you cannot

have an infinite number of causes. Therefore there must have been an

uncaused causer, which causes everything to happen without itself

being caused by anything else. Such an uncaused cause is what people

understand by 'God'.

This idea was revisited by William Lane Craig who developed the Kalam

cosmological argument. He reinforced the contention that the universe

must have had a creator by firstly proving that the universe if

finite. He proves this by explaining that the present would not exist

in an actual infinite universe, because successive additions cannot be

added to an actual infinite. The present does exist, as a result of a

chronological series of past events. The universe must be finite.

Craig seeks to prove that the universe must have had a beginning in

time and that there must have been a creator who was uncaused. The

Kalam argument makes the cosmologi...

... middle of paper ...

...but does not prove there was a being that started this. The

beginning of the universe could be put down to coincidence followed by

the evolution of life. However, it does not disprove the existence of

an uncaused causer. How do we not know that God was not responsible

for the big bang?

In conclusion we can see that there are many reasons to believe that

the universe must have had a beginning. Both from a philosophical and

scientific point of view. However, this cannot be proved, we are still

able to question the idea. It is also debatable as to whether or not a

personal creator was involved. This is down to personal belief and

faith in God. I do not personally believe that the cosmological

argument is strong enough to prove the existence of God. But, it is

very convincing in proving that the universe had a beginning.