Cosmological argument
The cosmological argument is a well known argument that attempts to prove the existence of God. The most common leader of the argument is Thomas Aquinas who devised Five Ways to prove the existence of God, which he referred to as “demonstration.” It comes to the conclusion that God exists from posteriori because it focuses on cause and effect to come to an assumption that God exists, which contrasts with the priori approach to the ontological argument.
Linear religions generally accept that God made the universe ex nihilo because in Genesis God existed at the beginning of time; therefore, He must be the cause of the universe because you can’t have an effect without a cause. Aquinas hypothesised that nothing can be the cause of itself because “it would be prior to itself, which is impossible.” This is one out of three key elements of the cosmological argument that are justified to prove God: cause, motion and contingency.
To further support the cosmological argument Aquinas argued that motion cannot be traced back to infinity because there must have been a first movement that began the series of movements. Aquinas argued that the first mover was God because He cannot be moved: He is an external energy. The element of motion is an idea that is used loosely because it also refers to change as …show more content…
However, the argument doesn’t have actual proof that God was the beginning of time; Aquinas just assumes that God is the root cause because we don’t have the knowledge to prove otherwise. So perhaps it is easier to come to a conclusion that appears to prove God, than to prove nothing. The main flaw in the argument is that Aquinas states that everything must have sufficient reasoning but God exists without one, so from this it could be concluded that God doesn’t exist: He has no reason
The cosmological argument is a well known argument that attempts to prove the existence of God. The most common leader of the argument is Thomas Aquinas who devised Five Ways to prove the existence of God, which he referred to as “demonstration.” It comes to the conclusion that God exists from posteriori because it focuses on cause and effect to come to an assumption that God exists, which contrasts with the priori approach to the ontological argument.
Linear religions generally accept that God made the universe ex nihilo because in Genesis God existed at the beginning of time; therefore, He must be the cause of the universe because you can’t have an effect without a cause. Aquinas hypothesised that nothing can be the cause of itself because “it would be prior to itself, which is impossible.” This is one out of three key elements of the cosmological argument that are justified to prove God: cause, motion and contingency.
To further support the cosmological argument Aquinas argued that motion cannot be traced back to infinity because there must have been a first movement that began the series of movements. Aquinas argued that the first mover was God because He cannot be moved: He is an external energy. The element of motion is an idea that is used loosely because it also refers to change as …show more content…
However, the argument doesn’t have actual proof that God was the beginning of time; Aquinas just assumes that God is the root cause because we don’t have the knowledge to prove otherwise. So perhaps it is easier to come to a conclusion that appears to prove God, than to prove nothing. The main flaw in the argument is that Aquinas states that everything must have sufficient reasoning but God exists without one, so from this it could be concluded that God doesn’t exist: He has no reason