The Cosmological Argument
for God’s Existence
Argument’s basic theme:
Everything that exists must have a cause.
The universe exists, therefore it must have a
cause.
This “first cause” is God.
St Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274)
Argument’s premises (simple version):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
the universe exists
everything that exists has a cause
causes precede their effects
the chain of cause & effect cannot go back in time
indefinitely (an infinite regress)
therefore, there must be a ‘first cause’ that is not itself
an effect (ie. it has no prior cause)
since everything has a cause, this first cause must be
the cause of itself (ie. it must necessarily exist)
this self-caused first cause is God
therefore, God exists
Possible flaws in the argument:
• it is conceivable that the chain of cause & effect extends
back into infinity (rebuts premise 4) By way of contrast,
consider the future… do you suppose the future has a
specific ending point?
• the argument seems inherently self-contradictory. It is
based on the assumption that everything has a cause.
This then begs the question – if this ‘first cause’ is God,
what caused God?
• if one accepts the idea of a ‘first cause’ (ie. something
that has always existed), it can be argued that the
universe may always have existed. The regress could
end with the necessary existence of the universe. It
need not end with the positing of God as a ‘first cause’.
Implications of the cosmological argument :
If one accepts the cosmological argument as to God’s
existence, what does it say about God’s nature?
Is it consistent with God being omniscient, omnipotent,
and all loving?
What kind of God is posited by the cosmological
argument?
Variations on the cosmological argument:
• the Kalam cosmological argument
► relies on the premise that the universe has a
beginning in time
• the Modal cosmological argument
► is based on the premise that the universe stretches
back into eternity
Read both variations in your booklet: pp.9-13