The cosmological argument is one theory for the existence of God; it is based upon the existence of a unique being, which is commonly referred to as God. This based upon facts regarding causation, contingency, motion, change and finitude relative to the processes within the universe. In this essay I am going to describe the arguments of Aristotle, one of the founders of this argument and Leibniz, who argues for the principle of sufficient reason; a theory that goes hand in hand with the cosmological argument. Also, I will be looking at why this is a bad argument, including theories that will contest the First Cause being God.
Before Aristotle, philosopher Aquinas was the first to put forward the cosmological argument; this is because he thought …show more content…
It is argued that it is unique, but this also does not explain why it has no causes. As this question is a popular way to refute the cosmological argument, it creates doubt that the argument is true. In addition, this argument does not identify the first cause, as it does not necessarily have to be God. The cosmological argument only states that a first cause exists, therefore it could acknowledged as the big bang, an unstated first cause or truly God.
The most conflicting evidence which suggests that the cosmological argument is bad is the Big Bang cosmology. The big bang is the point in which all things came into existence; the start of time and space. Consequently, the question ‘what was before the universe?’ is not logical. This is due to the fact ‘before’ becomes worthless, as it is a state without time. This means that the big bang is the first cause, not God, therefore cosmological argument does not prove the existence of …show more content…
They are predestination paradox, meaning that travelling back in time is conceivable. This means that a suitably powerful being would be able to travel back before its own life, to make itself and intern everything else will follow. This would mean that there is technically not a first cause, just a powerful being with the ability of travelling backwards in time.
Another philosopher, Alexander R. Pruss, created the Hume-Edwards principle based upon the two named philosopher’s theories on the cosmological argument. The principle is that “if the existence of every member of a set is explained, the existence of that set is thereby explained”. This means that each set has a different explanation, therefore there is existence would be different and there wouldn’t be a first
Before Aristotle, philosopher Aquinas was the first to put forward the cosmological argument; this is because he thought …show more content…
It is argued that it is unique, but this also does not explain why it has no causes. As this question is a popular way to refute the cosmological argument, it creates doubt that the argument is true. In addition, this argument does not identify the first cause, as it does not necessarily have to be God. The cosmological argument only states that a first cause exists, therefore it could acknowledged as the big bang, an unstated first cause or truly God.
The most conflicting evidence which suggests that the cosmological argument is bad is the Big Bang cosmology. The big bang is the point in which all things came into existence; the start of time and space. Consequently, the question ‘what was before the universe?’ is not logical. This is due to the fact ‘before’ becomes worthless, as it is a state without time. This means that the big bang is the first cause, not God, therefore cosmological argument does not prove the existence of …show more content…
They are predestination paradox, meaning that travelling back in time is conceivable. This means that a suitably powerful being would be able to travel back before its own life, to make itself and intern everything else will follow. This would mean that there is technically not a first cause, just a powerful being with the ability of travelling backwards in time.
Another philosopher, Alexander R. Pruss, created the Hume-Edwards principle based upon the two named philosopher’s theories on the cosmological argument. The principle is that “if the existence of every member of a set is explained, the existence of that set is thereby explained”. This means that each set has a different explanation, therefore there is existence would be different and there wouldn’t be a first