Hume questioned the necessity of claiming the whole universe has a cause just because it can be explained by a chain of causes. However, If the universe never had a beginning then there indeed would be an actual infinite, an infinite amount of cause and effect events.
The ideas on cause and effect, motion and change and contingency are clear and easy to follow making it comprehendible and easy to support.
Hume believed that the idea of the necessary being was incoherent and illogical.
There were five proofs which he came up with but his three ways are commonly used as the cosmological argument for the existence of God. For many people, the idea that God is the cause of the universe is straightforward and no more explanation is required.
The fact that the argument also helps develop an understanding of popular questions helps it to be a strong theory.
Since it is possible for such things not to exist, there must be some time at which these things did not in fact exist. Also, he questioned the relation between causes and effects and that every event has a cause. In what he called "first philosophy" or metaphysics, Aristotle did intend a theological correspondence between the prime mover and deity presumably Zeus ; functionally, however, he provided an explanation for the apparent motion of the " fixed stars " now understood as the daily rotation of the Earth.
In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. The German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz made a similar argument with his principle of sufficient reason in To do so, the cause must coexist with its effect and be an existing thing.
Once it is built, the builder walks away, and it stands on its own accord; compare the watchmaker analogy. Since these attributes are unique to God, anything with these attributes must be God.
He also claimed that since the universe is beyond our experience, how can we know that the universe has a first cause? Versions of the argument[ edit ] Argument from contingency[ edit ] In the scholastic era, Aquinas formulated the "argument from contingency ", following Aristotle in claiming that there must be something to explain why the Universe exists.
Hence, the Universe had a beginning. Hume also criticised the idea of the first cause as he implied it was too confusing to follow. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect.
Another strength is due to the argument being an a posteriori argument and it being from everyday experience of the universe.In natural theology and philosophy, a cosmological argument is an argument in which the existence of a unique being, generally seen as some kind of god, is deduced or inferred from facts or alleged facts concerning causation, change, motion, contingency, or finitude in respect of the universe as a whole or processes within it.
a) Explain the strengths and weaknesses of Aquinas’ cosmological arguments. The cosmological argument is an a posteriori argument based on the question of the relation of the universe’s existence and God’s existence. Cosmological Argument Page 1 of 5 book ‘Summa Theologica’ who established the argument as we know it today.
Aquinas had five proofs for the existence of God, of which three are cosmological; they are the First Cause Argument, the Prime Mover Argument and the Argument.
The five ways are: argument for an unmoved mover, argument for an uncaused causer, argument from contingency, argument from gradation and argument from teleology.
It is the first three that support the cosmological argument to explain the existence of God. a) Explain Aquinas Cosmological Argument The Cosmological Argument is a posteriori argument (knowledge gained after experience) which attempts to prove that there is a rational basis for the belief in God.
Explain Aquinas' cosmological argument for the existence of God The Cosmological Argument has several forms, but is fundamentally a proof for the existence of the God of classical theism.
It seeks to respond to the human need for answers to questions like "who created the universe?".Download