The Cosmological Argument (Tutorial Group Aquinas Write-up)

Aquinas argument for the existence of god:
Change:
-all things change
-all things are in the process of change
-something is always in the process of change
-things in the process of change are not yet fully what they should be ( not
fulfilling their potential)
-change has to start from somewhere--) chain
-the cause changes something to be another thing ( example: fire- which is
actually hot, causes wood which can potentially be hot, to become actually
hot. Therefore, there is a change in the wood)
-objects cannot change itself-something has to cause it to change
-chainà something else is changing something, and the something is being
changed by something else ( ect)
-the chain must stop somewhere, otherwise there will be no 1st cause of the
chain
-without a 1st cause, there will be no change
(Ex: if the hand doesn’t move the stick, then the stick will not move.)
-what causes this chain is unknown, therefore, is must be a greater power that
does not depend on anything.

The Cosmological Argument (Supplement)

The cosmological argument proceeds in two steps. The first part claims the existence of a necessary being, a first cause of all things. The second part of the argument seeks to establish that that being is God. We are only dealing with the first part of Aquinas's argument. I will follow Rowe in using the phrase "dependent being" to mean "a being which has the reason for its existence in the causal efficacy or nature of some other being" and the expression "indpendent being" to mean "a being which has the reason for its existence within its own nature."

The cosmological argument depends on acceptance of a strong form of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which states that not only those beings which begin to exist must have a cause of explanation (the weak form of the PSR) but that absolutely every being must have an explanation of its existing rather than not existing.

This is how Rowe states the argument:

1. If every being is dependent then the whole of existing things consists of an infinite collection of dependent beings;
2. If the whole of existing things consists of an infinite collection of dependent beings then the infinie collection itself must have an explanation of its existence;
3. If the existence of the infinite collection of dependent beings has an explanation then the explanation must lie either in the causal efficacy of some being outside the collection or it must lie within the infinite collection itself;
4. The explanation of the existence of the infinite collection of dependent beings cannot lie in the causal efficacy of some being outside the collection;
5. The explanation of the existence of the infinite collection of dependent beings cannot lie within the collection itself; therefore,
6. There is no explanation of the infinite collection of dependent beings (from 3, 4, 5); therefore,
7. It is false that the whole of existing things consists of an infinite collection of dependent beings (from 2 and 6); therefore
8. It is false that every being is dependent.