The Main Properties of the Cosmological Argument Essay
The cosmological argument began with Plato and ever since been defended and attacked by many great philosophers. One of the supporters was Leibniz. The cosmological argument is basically an argument about causation. Its major supporter was Thomas Aquinas though Gotfried Leibniz also put forward a simplified version of Aquinas's cosmological argument. The major critics of the argument have included David Hume and Bertrand Russell who question the basic principle that the argument works from.
While the arguments of Aquinas assume that the universe cannot be temporally infinite, there is a version of the cosmological argument (supported by …show more content…
However many major thinkers have rejected the cosmological argument such as David Hume. Hume states that it is illogical to think of God. God is just claimed as an excuse because of the need for a first mover. God is just a name to a process we can't define. Hume is an empiricist (bases everything on experience).
Empiricists believe that if you can't see/ study something in this world, you do not know it. You cannot observe a universe starting, therefore we do not know about it. Hume also suggests that we are here, and that is that. Why do we need an explanation anyway? Hume asks why, if everything has a cause, must one thing not.
As does Bertrand Russell. Russell believes that the universe is 'just a brute fact', and it does not matter how, we are just here!'
The universe is not an issue.
Perhaps the most important fault in the cosmological argument is what would appear to be a contradiction in the idea of everything having a cause for its existence, while at the same time holding that at the end of the chain there is a first-mover that is itself unmoved. Is there any reason to believe this idea? Why should everything except God have a cause? If you