[Essay] Philosophy

How far does the cosmological argument prove that god exists?

Some philosophers would argue that even if there was a first cause of the universe, there is no proof it is the god of classic theism. The first cause could be anything. This view has become know as fideism, which argues that faith cannot be tested by using rational enquiry and faith is something that an existing believer accepts due to religion and teachings. Hume argued that the first cause of the world, if there was one, could be the material, physical world rather than god. He believes that the material world as its own cause is just as satisfactory explanation as god.

Also there seem to be flaws in both Aquinas’ and Craig’s arguments as hey both deny infinite regression, however they put forward god as an infinite being. This contradiction questions the validity behind the cosmological argument and because of this, the existence of god proven by this argument.

Smith has argued against the kalam version of the cosmological argument, he would have used quantum mechanics to suggest the possibility of things existing without a direct cause. The universe may have had a beginning, but their reason to think that this beginning must have been god.

To conclude, the belief that god was this beginning or “necessary being” is very much a matter of faith. It may be that the cosmological argument supports an individual’s belief. However the cosmological argument probably will not convert a non-believe into accepting the existence of god.

What are the strengths and weaknesses of the argument?

The strengths of the cosmological argument are firstly the argument is a posteriori, meaning it is based on an experience which then makes this a strength. Everyone has experienced cause and effect, the fact that you must have a cause before you can produce an effect, and then are able to understand the belief in the universe having a first cause. However not all believers in cause and effect must then believe Aquinas’ argument for the necessary being resulting in god. This then makes this a weakness. For example, the big bang theory has provided scientific evidence for the creation of the world, but how can we then explain the cause of the big bang? We must have a very first mover and Aquinas points to god. Without another logical explanation for this first mover, this is then another strength of the cosmological argument.

As well as this, people can see for themselves that the universe exists, providing further support for the argument that things existing are caused to exist. This provider again must be god according to this argument. On the other hand, who is to say that things did not just come about? Hume argues this by explaining the world as its own cause is just as satisfactory explanation as god.

Another strength is the suggested theory by the philosopher Richard Swinburne. He states that it is the simplest explanation of why there is something rather than nothing. The argument satisfies the need to find a first cause of the universe resting on the fact that this first cause is god. This however can also be proven a weakness as it can be seen as a lazy attitude in which to look at the creation of the world. Without continuing investigation we may never able to prove the existence/non-existence of god.

What is the value of this argument for religion and religious faith?

Looking at arguments Aquinas has presented as evidence for the existence of god , we must consider whether or not the argument would convert non believers into religious believers.

Natural theology is the knowledge of god which is obtained by reason alone, without the aid of revelation. It could be argued that the cosmological argument provides such basis as when added to the other arguments for the existence of god, reasons for believing in god are strengthened. However, Russell denied evidence presented by the existence of god can neither be proven or disproven. According to Russell, arguments for the existence of god have no value. However, religious believers would not agree as such theories simply support their existing beliefs as they have faith that god exists. This view has become know as fideism, an idea that religious beliefs cannot be justified by rational means, only through faith. Therefore they will look at the universe and see cause and effect, motion and change and accept that it was brought into existence by god. The atheist however may be inclined to look at the universe and put it down to random chance.