Cosmological Proof of Gods Existence - Essay Example

? Arguments against Thomas Aquinas’ Cosmological Proof of God’s Existence Teacher               Arguments against Thomas Aquinas’ Cosmological Proof of God’s Existence The 13th century saint and philosopher Thomas Aquinas has laid the foundation of the cosmological proof of God’s existence, or the existence of God as the First Uncaused Cause in a series of causes. God is known as the Creator of the universe and it is therefore only fitting to regard Him as the First Cause or the Uncaused Cause of things. Nevertheless, Aquinas’ cosmological argument lends itself to several flaws in logic and practicality. According to the Cosmological Argument of Thomas Aquinas, God is the First and Uncaused Cause. Mainly, the argument is based on induction. It begins with Aquinas believing that there is an order of “efficient causes” in this world (Reichenbach, 2012). This means that causality exists in this world and that this causality has a particular order, where one thing causes another and this caused thing also causes another thing. Aquinas then proceeds by assuming that nothing can cause itself because it would be impossible for it to be prior to itself. This then leads Aquinas to think that everything is caused by another thing other than itself (Reichenbach, 2012). This part of the argument is rather self-explanatory but Aquinas makes it clear to his audience that causality works and that the law of causality exempts nothing. He also makes it clear that in this series of causes, it is impossible for one event to cause itself, or for one thing to cause its own existence. Aquinas is doing this while at the same time leading his reader to believe that there must be one cause that first caused all these series of causes but that this cause itself was not caused by any other cause. He does this while somehow postulating that only God can cause Itself to exist. Moreover, the significance of this particular assumption is that if one thing can cause itself, then there would not be any first cause, for if one thing could cause itself, then there would not be any need for this first cause to cause the event next to it. In short, if a cause could cause itself, then each cause could be independent of each other and there would be no series. Aquinas then assumes and states that in matters of efficient cause, it is not possible to go to infinity (Reichenbach, 2012). The purpose of this part of the argument is to convince the reader that there must have been a definite beginning to this series of causes. Otherwise, if this series of causes went on to infinity, then there would not be any first cause but only an endless series of causes. However, without giving any proof or any other insight, Aquinas somehow just considers this assumption on the absence of infinity a priori, and expects his audience to simply just accept this. What Aquinas has presented instead in order to prove his statement that it is possible to go to infinity with matters of efficient cause is rather an ontological proof. This proof is that, if there were an infinite number of causes, then there would neither be a “first efficient cause” nor an “ultimate effect” (Reichenbach, 2012). However, since these two things exist in nature and in reality, then there must not be an infinite series of causes. The last part of the argument is when Aquinas states that it is therefore necessary to admit a “first efficient cause,” which Aquinas believes everyone would call God. In summary, therefore, the argument of Aquinas, therefore, is that causality exists and that one thing causes another but cannot cause itself. This is to discount the possibility that an event is dependent on its own cause and is therefore independent of adjacent causes. Moreover, Aquinas assumes that it would not be possible for a series of causes to go on infinity, and he does this for the same reason that he assumes that one thing cannot cause itself. He then also proves ontologically that if there were an infinite number of causes, then there would not be a “first cause” or an “ultimate effect” (Reichenbach, 2012). After stating this, Aquinas then ultimately concludes that there is only one Uncaused Cause, the first cause, and this is God. Personally, I do not agree with Aquinas on his cosmological proof mainly because of the problems in how he constructed his argument. Firstly, Aquinas’ a priori idea that the series cannot go on to infinity definitely requires proof other than the ontological proof that with the idea of infinity, there would be no first cause or ultimate effect. This assumption somehow implies that it is definitely impossible for Aquinas to know exactly why something cannot possibly go on to infinity. Besides, if the proof of the cosmological argument is simply an ontological one like the one provided by Aquinas, one can just simply say that since the “first cause” ontologically exists, then God as the first uncaused cause also exists. Aquinas could have done this without having to go through the whole cosmological proof. Another problem with the cosmological proof of Aquinas is that although he has somehow successfully proven the validity of the existence of the first cause, it would seem like an entirely different story to apply this as a valid proof of God’s existence (The Cosmological Argument, n.d.). What Aquinas has proven so far is the existence of a first cause or of an uncaused cause, not the existence of God. God must indeed be loftier and more honorable than the uncaused cause. A third problem with the cosmological argument of Aquinas is that he failed to consider that perhaps human reason or human logic must not be enough to exactly prove the existence of God, that is, if ever God really existed. This means that there is no way that any human being can possibly prove the existence of something that is basically beyond human comprehension. This is actually the problem not only with Aquinas’ cosmological proof and his other arguments but with all other arguments on the existence of God. Everything that one could come up with therefore is mere assumption for nothing can ever be said of God, whose nature and existence is undefined and beyond any human capacity. Therefore, unless Aquinas’ God is comprehensible and knowable, then no argument can ever prove His existence. A fourth problem with the cosmological argument of God’s existence is that if God’s existence depends on the idea of a first cause or of it being proven as a first cause, then it simply means that God’s existence must depend on something else and that God therefore must not be omnipotent as He is known to be and as Aquinas obviously regards him to be. Since God’s existence depends on the law of causality, then it means that if God is dependent on causality and if causality did not exist, then God must not exist either. The use of causality in proving God’s existence must therefore be something that undermines God’s omnipotence and God Himself. A fifth problem with Aquinas’ cosmological argument is that several of his statements seem contradictory. One example is that when he says that every event has a cause, it means that there is no exception to this rule and that even the first cause or the first event has a cause. However, his statement that there cannot be an infinite series of events somehow disagrees with the first statement because when there is no infinite series of events, then the initial point must be an uncaused cause, and the last event must be one that is not capable of causing another event after it. The existence of these two special events will therefore contradict the idea that “every event has a cause” and will therefore violate the law of causality. In fact, I found out that this is actually similar to the idea of Bertrand Russell before (Cosmological Argument, n.d.). One last problem with the cosmological argument of Aquinas is its statement that it is impossible to have infinities in nature. This is simply illogical because numbers, which are used to express the number of causes, must necessarily be infinite. If someone challenged my opposition to the cosmological proof of Aquinas, he would definitely use the idea of first cause in that he would say that nothing could have caused God and God must have created everything else after Him. The counterargument against this would be very simple, however. Since this argument of his is not one which is scientific or logical, then it would appear weak when it comes to the lack of reasons and proof for it. Such an argument only relies on biblical information, which is not considered valid and logical in argumentation. Another challenge to my idea of separating God away from the idea of the first cause is that God and the first cause must indeed be the same for God may not be the human God that is recognized by popular religion but may actually be a concept like a cause. To this, the appropriate response must be that it can be true that the first cause must be God, but that the author of this argument must accept the fact that the First Cause has all the other qualities attributed to God Himself like omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresent. God is also forgiving and loving. All these qualities cannot be possibly possessed by the First Cause. Moreover, equating God with the First Cause is an act of limiting God and robbing from Him any of the loving qualities that religion has attributed to Him. A third counterargument to my own arguments would be that the existence of God is actually knowable or that man is actually capable of knowing God, which is contrary to an argument that I have put forward earlier. Perhaps, this counterargument is true but only in the context of human logic. That is, man can only know God based on their own criteria of Him and based on how they would assess Him using logic. Nevertheless, there is no known or prescribed supernatural way of knowing God, which is a supernatural idea and not just a concept that is limited by human logic. Therefore, it is true that God and His existence are knowable but only in the context of human logic. There is, however, no way to ascertain whether or not this is a valid proof of the existence of a supernatural being. One last counterargument against my stance is that there is definitely a beginning to all things and so there must really be a first cause. It is true that there is a beginning to many things but not necessarily to all things because one simply does not know that. There may be a beginning to life as in birth but there is no way to conclude then that God too has a beginning or causality has a beginning. It simply does not follow that when a beginning exists for some events, then it has to exist for causality too and for God (Thomas Aquinas, “The Argument from Efficient Cause,” 2005). Ontological proofs basically do not work here because one cannot prove God’s existence on the basis of principles governing human events. Besides, even if there really is a first cause, it does not say anything at all about the existence of God. The cosmological proof of the existence of God, according to saint and doctor of the Catholic Church Thomas Aquinas, is the idea that God exists as the first cause or the uncaused cause of a series of causes. With this argument come certain principles like the law of causality or the idea that everything has a cause, the postulate that nothing could possibly cause itself, and the absence of infinities, which means that a first cause and an ultimate effect must necessarily exist. Thus, since nothing could cause itself and since it is not possible to have an infinite number of causes, then there must be a first uncaused cause, which Aquinas calls God. There are, however, many problems with this cosmological argument. Among these are the fact that God and the first cause must not be synonymous, the idea that a supernatural God cannot be possibly known through human logic, the idea that infinity is impossible in nature, the idea that this lack of infinity needs proof, and the idea that the law of causality – that everything has a cause – is actually contrary to the idea that infinities do not exist – or that there must be an uncaused first cause. This is why Aquinas’ cosmological argument is actually not very feasible. A number of counterarguments may actually defend Aquinas by saying that God is indeed the first cause, that God is knowable by human beings, and that there must really be a beginning to things. To this the response would naturally still use logic. God may indeed be the first cause but a first cause cannot possibly have all the other supernatural qualities attributed to God. God may actually be knowable but definitely only in the limited context of human logic. Lastly, there is really a beginning to many things and events, but such may not apply to God, for God cannot be possibly measured by human things and events. References Cosmological Argument. (n.d.). Retrieved from Teachers’ Enterprise in Religious Education: http://www.tere.org/assets/downloads/secondary/pdf_downloads/ALevel/CosTelSummaryCritique.pdf Reichenbach, B. (2012). Cosmological Argument. Retrieved from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/ The Cosmological Argument. (n.d.). Retrieved from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: http://www.unc.edu/~theis/phil32/cosmological.html Thomas Aquinas, “The Argument from Efficient Cause.” (2005). Retrieved from Lander University: http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/cause.shtml Read More