Aquinas's Cosmological Argument

Infinite Regression

1. There is an unlimited number of past events.

2. Aquinas said that it was not possible, and there must have been a beginning, a first event.

Three Arguments from Aquinas’s Summa Theologica

1. He has his five ways, which are five arguments for G-d.

2. Three of these ‘ways’ are cosmological arguments.

First Way: Argument from Motion

1. Every object has the potential to be in motion, or is actually in motion.

2. For something to go from potentiality to actuality, it must be moved by something in actuality

3. So, there must be something that has always been in actuality, otherwise there is the problem of infinite regress.

4. So there must be a first mover, G-d.

Quote from Summa Theologica for First Way

“It is necessary to arrive at a first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone understands to be G-d”.

Arguments for Aquinas’ First Way

1. It is based on observation and empiricism as opposed to revelation or faith.

2. It can be applied to virtually any object, so anyone can observe its truth - not esoteric.

Second Way: Argument from Efficient Cause

1. Everything has a cause, and nothing causes itself.

2. There cannot be an infinite regression of efficient causes.

3. So there must be a first cause, G-d.

Quote from Summa Theologica for Second Way

“Therefore it is necessary to suppose the existence of some first efficient cause, and this men call God.”

Third Way: Argument from Contingency

1. There are things in the universe that are capable of existing and not existing, contingent things.

2. It is impossible for everything to be contingent, because it means at some point nothing would exist, so nothing would exist now.

3. Therefore, there must have been a necessary being, G-d.

Quote from Summa Theologica for Third Way

“Therefore it is necessary to suppose the existence of something which is necessary in itself, not having the cause of its necessity from any outside source, but which is the cause of necessity in others. And this ‘something’ we call God.”

Aquinas’s Cosmological Argument is Convincing

1. There must be a series of movers and cannot have an infinite regression.

2. Needs to be an uncaused first cause.

Aquinas’s Cosmological Argument isn’t Convincing

1. Subatomic particles are not contingent on other things existence, so his premise that everything is contingent is wrong.

2. You can believe in an infinite regression.

3. Just because things in the universe are contingent doesn’t mean the universe is also contingent.

4. We cannot answer such a question such as ‘why does the world exist’, so don’t bother asking it, its not a valid question - Dawkins in his interview with Mehdi Hassan.

Kant on the Cosmological Argument.

1. Cosmological argument relies on the principle of causality.

2. This is a synthetic a priori concept (not from sensory observation, but is necessary for understanding observation).

3. Therefore, applying the principle of causality beyond the realm of possible observation, we cannot observe this ‘first mover’, applies a concept in an area where it is illogical to apply it.

Kalam Cosmological Argument

Put forward by Islamic theologians, and popularised by William Lane Craig.

1. Everything that begins to exist must have a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. The universe has a cause.

4. The cause is G-d.

Counter to Kalam Cosmological Argument

1. No proof of a personable G-d - even if this is correct it does not prove that there is a G-d who has the Biblical qualities we ascribe to it.

2. Since it denies infinity actually existing, it can’t base its argument on the opposite, an infinite G-d.

Counter to it not Leading to a Personable G-d

1. From the cosmological argument we know that G-d must be immaterial, spaceless and timeless.

2. Only two things fit this category, an unbodied mind and an abstract object like a number.

3. A number cannot cause anything.

4. Therefore it must be an unbodied mind - G-d.