Ramble. Focus. Ramble.

Aquinas’s Cosmological Argument

It is necessary to admit a first efficient cause to which everyone gives the name of God. (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae)

We see an order in all the things in the world. Scientific relations have been possible only because there are relations, cause and effect in nature. Some things cause the other and then there are intermediate causes that keep on causing other things. Noting in earth or the cosmos is an efficient cause of itself. Efficient causes are following order; first cause moves the second, the second moves the third and so on. These causes cannot go to infinity and therefore an uncaused cause is necessary. For the following causes to exist there has to be a first cause or their will be no ultimate or intermediate causes.

Yes, it is our common sense that makes us conclude that and we do not have a scientific prove that things in nature cause one another. And David Hume did argue that there is a fallacy of composition. One cannot always assume that every effect has a cause. However, who has ever come up with an example of a randomly originating object? Everything has cause and effect. If anything comes into existence without a cause it is probably the rabbit that comes out from a prestidigitator’s hat. But that is just a delusion. Nothing at all, randomly originates. Therefore this common sense perception is valid. Anscombe derived the same conclusion by saying that everything that has existence has cause. We do not need scientific data for that. Anything coming into reality without a cause is a contradiction or an absurdity.

Everything that exists needs a cause and the universe exists so it has a cause. However, this cause and effect cannot go to infinity. Why? Because if we assume that we are assuming that there are infinite objects. So there also needs to be a caused that is uncaused and it is obviously necessary to hold all the other causes.

It is a strong argument, from where I stand, because all evidence points to the fact that there is cause and effect in everything. It fits with the laws of nature and since there has to be a sufficient reason it is God, the necessary uncaused cause. The argument is strong in giving a reason for why there should be something (a God) instead of nothing. As an agnostic a reason that tells you why there must be a god and not the other way is what is most captivating. Other parts of the Cosmological Argument that assert god the unmoved mover and the necessary for all the other contingents are also helpful.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


This entry was posted on May 30, 2011 by in Philosophy and tagged , , .
%d bloggers like this: