The Cosmological Argument

* Everything in the world is in the process of motion and an object has the potential to become an actual something.

* It cannot be both- for example, cold water cannot be potentially cold because its natural state is cold.

* What ever is moved by , it must be moved by another thing. The chain  of movers cannot go on for infinity as there would be no 1st mover or any other moves for that matter.

* If we go on fofar enough, we arrive at a 1st mover," it is neccessary to arrive at a 1st mover, put in motion by no other."

 * Aiainas claims that the 1st mover is God- therefore God exists.

* Nothing can be an effiecient cause of itself- it had to exist in rder to bring itself into existence. The chain of causes go from first , second and so on.

* If we trace far enough, there must of been a 1st causer, caused by noother.Infinite regress is impossible as if there was no 1st causer, then nohing would exist.

* Aquinas  claimed that the 1st causer is God therefore he exists.

* The world consists of contingent beings which at one point did not exist- i.e  at one point we did not exist.

* If everything at one point did not exist, then nothing would be in existence, as nothing can come from nothing.

* There must exist something, the existance of which is necessary."

* As there are contingent beings, there must be a neccessary being which had always existed.

Therefore, infinite regress is impossible as Aquinas demonstartes that God is the neccessary being and so he exists.

Cause in Esse: suistainer (light bulb)

Aquinas demonstartes that God is a cause in esse as he suistains motion , cause and the universe. Everything continues to be dependent on God- which is known as the ontological argument as he is omni-potent, omniscient and omni-benevolent.

Cause in Fier- create and go (boat builder)

1: No proof as it is an inductive argument. However, Liebniz uses his suffiecient reasoning to the understanding of contingent beings. Science supports the beginning of the universe and can lead to different interpretations which he uses the example of Quantum physics. This leads room for the possibility of God.

The principle of sufficient reason

·         ‘why is there something rather than nothing?’

·         There ultimate explanation for physical things that be outside the realm with something that contains the reason for its own existence (of ‘metaphysical necessity’)

·         The reason that the universe exists is because God exists

2: Why does it have to be God? Who caused God?

3: Relies on faith

4: Contradictory

5: Hume- draws evidence beyond our experience

6: Russells fallacy of composition - "is" Just because we have a mother...

* It is a posterori argument based on experience - we know about cause and effect so the COSMO gives reasons on how the universe was created. It gives us a direct understanding of the concept of God due to the intellectual support for the belief.Yet the argument is still a brute fact unless one has pre-existing faith.

* It is a sense of empirical evidence as there must of been something that caused the universe. For instance, science has given us the evidence that the Big Bang accured but what caused this? God perhaps according the the 2nd way.

* The kalam argument- William Craig, we cannot live in an actual infinite- one event follows the other.