St Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument Flashcards
What type of argument is the cosmological argument?
• A posteriori – It is based on experience of the world around us. The argument begins with facts we observe—like movement, change, and causation
•Synthetic – It depends on evidence, experience, or observation. You cannot know it’s true just by analysing the words—you need to look at the world e.g. “The universe exists” is a synthetic claim, you need to experience or observe the world to confirm it
•Inductive – The conclusion is based on observation, but it’s not logically certain, just highly probable e.g. everything we see has a cause, so probably the universe has a cause too
What is the Cosmological argument?
-The Cosmological Argument, developed by thinkers like Thomas Aquinas, is an inductive argument that uses causal reasoning and posits that the existence of the universe necessitates a first cause, which is identified as God
Who was Thomas Aquinas?
A 13th century Catholic Philosopher
What does the cosmological argument propose in St Aquinas’ version?
-It is an a posteriori and inductive argument, meaning it begins with observation of the world—such as motion, change, and causation—and moves toward a probable conclusion
-One of the most well-known versions comes from Thomas Aquinas, who argued in his Five Ways that “nothing can come from nothing,” and that every effect must have a cause. He observed that everything in the universe appears to be caused by something else, but this chain of causes cannot go back infinitely—there must be a first uncaused cause to start the chain
What was St Aquinas’ fire and wood analogy?
-Aquinas uses the example that “fire causes wood to be hot,” explaining that wood cannot make itself hot; it must be made hot by something else that is already hot.
-Aquinas claims that things in the universe cannot cause themselves, and so there must be a “first efficient cause” or “unmoved mover” that began the chain
-This reasoning avoids infinite regress and presents God as the necessary starting point for all existence
How is the cosmological argument synthetic?
-The argument is also synthetic, as it depends on our experience of cause and effect rather than on definitions alone
-For many, its strength lies in its intuitive and logical appeal: we naturally ask where things come from, and the Cosmological Argument offers a clear and structured answer rooted in the observable world
-For religious believers, it adds value to faith by showing that belief in a creator is not purely abstract, but supported by empirical reasoning based on the universe’s existence and causation
What are the strengths of the cosmological argument?
-One strength of the Cosmological Argument is that it provides a clear and rational explanation using empirical evidence for the existence of the universe by arguing that all contingent reality must originate from a first cause, identified as God
-Another strength of the Cosmological Argument is that it offers a reasonable explanation for why contingent beings exist by inferring the need for a non-contingent, or necessary, cause
How does the cosmological argument infer the need for a necessary cause?
-Aquinas observed that everything in the universe is contingent—it depends on something else for its existence and could have not existed
-However, if everything were contingent, there would have been a time when nothing existed at all, and if that were the case, nothing would exist now
-To avoid this conclusion, Aquinas argues that there must be something that exists independently and does not rely on anything else—a necessary being
What is a quite form Aquinas about inferring God as a necessary being?
-He writes that “there must exist something the existence of which is necessary,” and although this conclusion is not reached analytically, it follows logically from the nature of the world we observe. -This line of reasoning gives the argument depth, as it not only identifies a first cause but also explores the type of being that could explain why there is something rather than nothing
-For religious believers, this strengthens faith by suggesting that the existence of God is not arbitrary, but grounded in the very structure of reality.
Why may the cosmological argument be better than design?
-The Design Argument is analogical, comparing the universe to a watch or a machine, which David Hume and others criticised as weak and anthropomorphic: Hume criticised the Design Argument for being anthropomorphic, arguing that comparing God to a human designer limits Him by making Him seem like a more powerful version of ourselves He questioned why we assume the universe was made by a wise and perfect mind, rather than by a lesser or even flawed one, asking, “why may not the material universe be the result of the working of a mind, like the mind of an animal?” For Hume, basing belief in God on human analogies makes the argument weak and speculative.
-The Cosmological Argument, on the other hand, uses causal reasoning—a form of logic that we use every day—and avoids potentially flawed comparisons
Why may the cosmological argument be better than the ontological?
-The Ontological Argument tries to define God into existence by claiming that existence is part of His essence. But Kant famously rejected this, arguing that “existence is not a predicate”—you can’t prove something exists just by thinking about it or defining it that way.
-The Cosmological Argument avoids this problem because it doesn’t rely on definitions. It builds from empirical evidence and follows causal reasoning—a type of logic we use every day.
