Outline the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God

 Outline the cosmological argument for the existence of God

Aristotle believed that everything is in motion due to something else, that everything is contingent upon something else. This would mean that there would have to be a first mover, something that isn’t contingent on anything else to make it move, a necessary being. This is an a posteriori argument; an argument that begins at the ends, then traces the evidence back to the beginning. Aristotle argues that the first mover, the unmoved mover, this argument suggests a correlation between the “unmoved mover” and the God of the Bible, both being just existing and not being caused by anything else. But Aristotle doesn’t claim that this unmoved mover is omnipotent or omniscient like the God of the Bible, he merely believed that there was a first mover.

        This moves onto the Kalam argument; an argument based on existence and its importance in the universe. The conclusion, the universe is here for a reason else it wouldn’t exist. Everything that exists has a purpose according to the Kalam argument, as the universe is in existence it must be serving a purpose. It outlines the universe as being contingent, and as the universe is contingent it must rely on something else for its existence. This something being the first mover in Aristotle’s argument. Later on more detail was added into the argument proposing that the cause of the existence of the universe is a being rather than a force. This argument doesn’t necessarily point to God but it does argue for the cause for existence being a Being.

St. Thomas Aquinas, studied Aristotle, and concluded from studying his surroundings that an object that is in because of some other object or force. From this, Aquinas believes that there is an unmoved mover who begins the movement within the universe. He also believed that everything was contingent other than the necessary being and the movement caused by this mover can’t be infinite. Unlike the pervious arguments Aquinas does believe this first mover is God. Aquinas also saw that nothing could have created itself, everything must have a maker. Aquinas believed that God was the maker that first made things exist. He believed that nothing could create itself other than God, and that God is responsible for the beginning of existence.

The last part of his argument is based on the idea of things being necessary and things being contingent, the beings are either one or the other. Contingent beings; being reliant on something else for its existence, and a necessary being; something being in existence without a creator to have made it. Aquinas believed this necessary being is God.

Finally Leibniz, "There can be found no fact that is true or existent, or any true proposition," he strongly believed in everything having a reason for its existence. He believed that the universe’s explanation for its existence the explanation is God. He has an idea of sufficient reason, that anything that exists requires an explanation and it shouldn’t just be accepted as something that, is.

All these arguments point to the original unmoved mover, and in the case of Aquinas and Leibniz the explanation for the first mover is God. All these arguments tend to follow a pattern and generally agree, that nothing just exists other than the necessary being. And that there can't be an infinite series.

How far is it safe to say that the strengths of the argument outweigh its weaknesses

The cosmological argument can be seen as a strong argument because it is a posteriori, meaning it’s based on experience. Swinburne argues from the perspective of an argument called Ockham’s razor. This argument simply says that God is the explanation for the universe.