Question Home

Position:Home>Philosophy> Need help Cosmological Argument Essay?


Question: Need help Cosmological Argument Essay!?
This is all I have written!. Can you please help, are there any other points I need to make!? 10 points best answer to greatest help! Thankyou!.

How Successful is the Cosmological Argument!? (20)

The Cosmological Argument is an a posteriori argument which attempts to prove that there is a rational basis for the belief in God!. The argument attempts to prove that God exists by evaluating the scale and nature of the cosmos!. Most supporters of the cosmological argument argue that the universe could only have come into existence if it were caused by an uncaused cause!. There is evidence to suggest that the universe is contingent (for example the big bang)!. However the success of the cosmological argument is debatable due to numerous arguments and criticisms from philosophers such as Hume and Kant!.

Thomas Aquinas, probably the best known theologian of medieval Europe, adapted the argument to create one of the most influential versions of the cosmological argument!. Aquinas stated that everything must have a cause, nothing is its own cause, a chain of causes cannot be infinite and that there must be a first cause!. This first cause must be an infinite, necessary being!. We can describe this being as God!. Aquinas referred to God as the “Unmoved mover” is his book ‘Summa Theologica’!. Aquinas suggested that anything which is moved must have been moved by something else!. However Aquinas rejects the idea of an infinite regression, therefore there must be one omnipotent being capable of moving things without being moved itself!. This theory is a logical one which successfully encourages the reader to consider (or perhaps accept) the existence of God as a first cause!.

However there are objections to Aquinas’s theory that have hindered the success of the cosmological argument!. One argument that has been seen to reoccur is the idea that infinity is possible and that the universe itself is the necessary existent thing!. Infinity has never been disproved, so why is it impossible that the universe has existed for eternity!? also how are we able to accept God as infinite if we have already rejected the idea of infinity!?

There is scientific evidence to support Aquinas’s theory that the universe is contingent!. The big bang theory is just one example!. Kant also supported Aquinas by claiming that an infinite chain of causes could never be completed, hence we could not exist! Therefore these arguments against Aquinas’s first way have all been knocked back, proving that the cosmological argument is very successful!.

Plato’s theory that God is outside the world of contingents also supports Aquinas’s line of argument in regards to the third way (the argument from possibility and necessity)!. However Hume argued that because God is outside the world of contingents it is very difficult for us to understand the nature of Him - a being which is necessary - because infinity is beyond our comprehension!.

Another objection to the cosmological argument is the question of why the first cause is exceptional in that it doesn’t require a cause!. Proponents would argue that the first cause is exempt from having a cause!. The problem with this is that even if we accept that the first cause is necessary, this does not define the first cause as God!. The cosmological argument may be successful in proving there is a first cause, but it does not apply the attributes of a theistic God to the cause!. However the ontological form of the cosmological argument would suggest that proof of necessary existence would be the first basis on which we could argue the existence of God!.
Www@QuestionHome@Com


Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:
This is actually well written and for the most part, very clear!. good job!.

however, one tip!. maybe insert a very brief definition of "contingent"!. maybe say "what i mean by contingent, is that blah blah blah" right after u first use the word in your essay!. then say that an example of it is the Big Bang!. because the reader may not understand what u mean by that!. especially readers unaquainted with philosophy, because i notice that you use it again when mentioning what Plato thinks, and the world of contingents!. "what the hell does that mean!?" is what the reader is gonna think!.

and the last thing i wanna say, even tho i kno ur not done, is when u talk about the ontological form of the cosmological argument, you should explain why and elaborate more on it!. it is unclear as it is!.

good luckWww@QuestionHome@Com

creation and pre-creation can be likened to conciousness and unconciousness,matter and antimatter,maybe antimatter opperates on the unconcious level,what happens if you fall asleep in a dream!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

I'm no genius; no philosopher; no professor; or expert on anything!. I'm only fair at basic logic; but I am, in my own estimation, an appreciator of good writing and good spelling!. So, having prefaced my answer thusly; I'll just share this comment--Your essay looks reasonable, logical, well-organized, and well-written to me!.
Good Luck and God bless you!.!.!.I really mean it!. Oh, you might like to get ahold of a recently published biography of Albert Einstein!. (I read it and am still not sure if he was a self-proclaimed agnostic or atheist; yet there are some marvelous quotes about how learning more about higher science actually convinced Einstein of the existence of some Divine Intelligence, Higher Power, and/or God!. I can't explain it as well as Doctor Einstein did!. Hope you may get a chance to find and read this book, too!. I found it very interesting as well as informative!. You may, too!.) Www@QuestionHome@Com

I have wrote about this here, you might be interested:

http://www!.thestargarden!.co!.uk/why%20did!.!.!.

"Since it has been accepted within physics that the universe begun as a 'big bang' when both space and time came into existence, then there is the obvious question of why it began!. Physicists sometimes say that this is a bad question because it is meaningless to talk of causality when there is no time or space!. Descartes once argued that every event must have a cause because every cause must be at least as real as the effect, however this was later shown to be a circular argument!. It proves that every event has a cause only if we assume that they do and so does not show that it is illogical to think of non-causal existence!.


If we did know why the big bang happened then science would rightfully demand an explanation of the cause of this cause and so this would soon regress to an infinite causal chain!. This provokes the idea that there must be something that has a necessary existence, something whose existence is self-explanatory!. Many people argue that this is God although there is no need for personification in this essence of God!. It could be argued that some kind or particle, or perhaps energy itself, has a necessary existence!."

Www@QuestionHome@Com

I forgot to mention when I answered this before that the big bang model of the beginning of the universe is only one model, and there are other competing models!. For example, the cyclic model had been gaining ground for some years now, and it's just as good as the big bang model to explain how the universe got here!. If it turns out to better fit the evidence, then again, no need for a first cause, no need for a God!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

at least If you were going to argue down the name "god" to something as simple an original cause, then you could as easily say whatever simple physical piece of matter existed before the big bang was god itself, then you have combined creationism into big-bang, defeating whatever religious context the argument had because science would have absorbed it in a paradox of human language and perception!.

Just an addition, nothing to compete with hume, kant or plato!.Www@QuestionHome@Com