Cosmological Argument

Question 1

Aquinas Way 1

Answer 1

• The first way recognises the existence if motion and change in nature.
• He is addressing Parmeides’ argument, ex nihilo nihil fit – meaning nothing comes from nothing. Aquinas is asking what could bring about the change of nothing to something – no universe to the existence of the universe. .
• For example, a TV on standby will stay that way until someone decides to push the remote, changing it from a state of off to on, leading us to ask who or what switched the universe ‘on’? - He says there must be a first mover or unmoved mover or an ultimate source of change in things. In this way Aquinas is using Aristotle’s “unmoved mover”.
• This argument is a reasonable and rational observation and makes sense as we see motion and change all around us.
• However, I think this argument is weaker due to the lack of proof that this is God, and I think Aquinas is tagging God onto the end due to his bias as a Catholic.
• His argument is based upon the reasoning of Aristotle; yet Aristotle did not find God but rather a Prime Mover, an initial force that set the universe into action.
• Aquinas is making an inductive leap.

Question 2

Aquinas Way 2

Answer 2

• The second way recognises the existence of cause and effect.
• Aquinas says that in order for there to be causes at work, there must be a first cause or uncaused cause as you cannot have an infinite regress of causes.
• This is a rational statement as we can see cause and effect in everyday life, however it is another inductive leap as there is no evidence that says this is God.
• Critics like David Hume argue that the idea of causation may only apply within the universe, not to the universe as a whole. Therefore, we cannot assume the universe needs a cause.

Question 3

Aquinas Way 3

Answer 3

• Aquinas’ third way recognises the existence of contingent beings.
• There must be a non-contingent being which is responsible for bringing the contingent universe into being. Aquinas calls this God.
• Aquinas says “Nothing comes from nothing”. This way is reasonable as everything we can observe is contingent. However, we can’t observe something necessary and therefore there is no evidence it exists. There is also nothing to say this necessary being is God. Additionally, Bertrand Russell argued that the universe is a brute fact, meaning it does not require a cause or explanation—it just exists. This challenges the assumption that a necessary being is required at all. It could be the universe itself. Aquinas’ argument largely points to there being a first cause but fails to prove this is God. I agree with Aquinas’ logic in that there is existence and motion in nature, cause and effect and contingent beings, however I think the conclusion that this is God is lazy. He has no evidence to point to this being God and is biased as he believes in God.