Philosophy/Theology/Logic: logical acumen and thinking - Essay Example

The cosmological argument is a posteriori argument that aims at proving the existence of God from the basis of our own existence. It purports to establish the existence of a being and its possession of the attributes- omnipotence, omniscience, goodness etc. - commonly associated with theistic concept of God (Rowe, M. William, 5). There are three forms of the cosmological argument: the Thomist, Leibnizian and Kalam arguments. The argument has got two distinct parts; the first part of the argument tries to establish the existence of a superior being, the unmoved mover or rather the prime mover as Aristotle tells us.

The second part of the argument on the other hand, moves to name the self existent being as God. The argument as put forth by St. Thomas Aquinas (13th C) and later a new version by Philosophers of 18th C moves from the known to unknown. In other words, it begins from what we see by our own senses to a reality that is beyond our experiences. The cosmological argument however, has left so many loopholes that are yet to be answered. One of the arguments by St. Thomas is the argument from motion; that some things in this world are seen to be in motion.

That which moves must have the potential of changing to actuality. But nothing can reduce itself from potentiality to actuality, except by something already in a state of actuality. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary (St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, Q. 2, 3rd Article, “5 ways” pp 5 and 6). A being that is purely in the actual state is responsible for the motion, is responsible for bringing into being and out of existence, is responsible for the beginning of the Universe.

Consider the Kalam argument by Moreland (178): 1. The Universe had a beginning 2. The beginning of the Universe was caused 3. The cause for the beginning of the universe was personal The Kalam argument is in fact very clear that the Universe had a beginning in time and everything that has a beginning in time has a cause. Put it in this way that everything with a beginning in time stands in need of explanation and the only explanation for the existence of the Universe must be, as it suggests, the Universe was created by God.

Indeed we are talking of a beginning or an end; that the Universe began from somewhere. The ever expanding Universe must have come from somewhere hence we talk of a beginning. Even the Big Bang theory fails to tell us the origin of the explosive density mass. Because if they tell us, it could imply again that the Universe must have been brought into being by a superior being that does not need any other being for its own existence. Again, if we infer that the uncaused cause, the necessary being requires another necessary being for it to exist, it will be absurd because in the first place infinitude here does not apply; again a necessary being does not require any other being for it to exist and therefore the necessary being must be one and that is God.

Can one imagine therefore, of a time when there was nothing at all? This is to tell us that if nothing was in existence, even now we would have nothing existing. But a gain can nothing produce nothing? Once more, since we are, it means