The Cosmological Argument simply proposes the argument, that God is the creator of the universe and without God there would be nothing. This argument is the simplest of all arguments as it begins with the simple fact that there is a universe. With this provided it means there are various different strengths and weaknesses put forward for this argument leading on to a final conclusion to the end to decide if this argument successfully proves the existence of God.
The Cosmological Argument proposed by Aquinas, is an argument that tries to persuade you that God exists. The argument states that if we all look at the world, you will notice that everything is caused by something else. Taking this into account we can see that there is a chain of causes because nothing can cause itself. So whatever started of the process must have been ‘uncaused’ or self-existent, meaning nothing caused it and it’s the necessary being. So we come to the conclusion that God is the only one powerful enough to be such a being so therefore God exists. The theory is basically arguing the point that nothing just pops into existence without a whole series of events before them to bring them into existence.
The argument provides controversy on the matter at hand as on one side the argument could be considered as extremely plausible but on the other side there may be more to how the universe came about. When analysing the argument we can see that the argument is practical and logical, as there had to be a point where everything started and there cannot be an infinite chain of cause and effect. Another strong aspect of the argument is that there must have been a first cause that was responsible for the existence of everything else, including the universe, therefore we come to the conclusion that God is the only one powerful enough to be the creator of the universe. The last strength of the argument is in the beginning of time there must have been something, as something can’t come from nothing, so God is the immediate source where all this power could come from to create the universe.
Criticisms are used against the Cosmological argument to explore different theories. The first criticism was proposed by the famous philosopher Bertrand Russell. He questioned, “If God made the universe, who made God?” There is no reason, according to Russell, why the world could have come into existence without a cause, nor he says, is there any reason as why it should not have always existed. Bertrand rejected the whole idea that there was a cause of the universe and Russell also stated, “the world is just there and that’s all,” clearly conveying that as far as he is concerned that if it was possible for God to exist without having been made, then it is just as possible for the universe to exist in the same way. But with every criticism there is always a counter argument put forward to argue their case against Russell’s theory. A religious person might respond to Russell’s argument by questioning, “How can everything else exist without something that starts the chain because the universe isn’t a being but God is.”
The second criticism used against the Cosmological argument is the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory is argued by scientists that it was the first cause of the universe and to prove this theory, they backed up their theory with evidence. In the beginning, space, time, energy and matter were all created as a result of a ‘Big Bang’ or ‘explosion.’ Therefore once this ‘explosion’ occurred it would have taken away the need for a creator, God. So…