Discuss cosmological argument for the existence of God, and show its merits and demerits.

The Cosmological Argument: Core Principles

At its heart, the cosmological argument asserts that the universe is contingent – meaning it doesn’t have to exist. Because contingent things require a cause for their existence, the universe itself must have a cause. This ultimate cause is identified as God, a necessary being whose existence is not dependent on anything else. The argument generally proceeds from the observation of motion, change, or contingency in the world to the conclusion of a first, uncaused cause.

Different Formulations of the Cosmological Argument

1. The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Popularized by contemporary philosopher William Lane Craig, the Kalam argument focuses on the beginning of the universe. It states:

• Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
• The universe began to exist.
• Therefore, the universe has a cause.

The second premise draws heavily on modern cosmology, particularly the Big Bang theory. Merit: It aligns with scientific understanding of the universe’s origins. Demerit: It faces the question of what caused God, potentially leading to an infinite regress. Also, the concept of ‘beginning’ itself is debated in the context of quantum physics and the possibility of a universe arising from nothing.

2. The Thomistic Cosmological Argument (Aquinas’s Five Ways)

Thomas Aquinas presented five arguments for God’s existence, the first three of which are cosmological. The ‘argument from motion’ posits that everything in motion is put in motion by something else, leading to an ‘unmoved mover’. The ‘argument from efficient cause’ argues that every effect has a cause, leading to a ‘first cause’. The ‘argument from contingency’ states that contingent beings depend on a necessary being for their existence. Merit: It provides a systematic and comprehensive framework based on Aristotelian metaphysics. Demerit: Critics argue that the concept of an ‘unmoved mover’ doesn’t necessarily imply a personal God. It could simply be an impersonal first principle.

3. The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz argued that for every contingent fact, there must be a sufficient reason why it is so, and not otherwise. Since the universe is a collection of contingent facts, it must have a sufficient reason for its existence. This sufficient reason is God. Merit: It emphasizes the intelligibility of the universe and the need for explanation. Demerit: The concept of a ‘sufficient reason’ is vague and open to interpretation. It doesn’t necessarily prove the existence of a theistic God.

Merits of the Cosmological Argument

• Intuitive Appeal: The idea that everything has a cause resonates with our everyday experience.
• Rational Foundation: It attempts to provide a rational basis for belief in God, rather than relying solely on faith or revelation.
• Compatibility with Science: Some formulations, like the Kalam argument, draw support from scientific discoveries.
• Addresses Fundamental Questions: It tackles profound questions about the origin and nature of the universe.

Demerits of the Cosmological Argument

• The Problem of the First Cause: If everything needs a cause, what caused God? This leads to an infinite regress or the assertion that God is an exception to the rule, which seems arbitrary.
• The Nature of the First Cause: Even if a first cause is established, it doesn’t necessarily prove the existence of a personal, benevolent God. It could be an impersonal force or principle.
• Logical Fallacies: Critics argue that the argument commits the fallacy of composition (assuming that what is true of parts is also true of the whole) and the fallacy of special pleading (making an exception for God).
• Quantum Physics Challenges: Modern physics, particularly quantum mechanics, suggests that some events may be uncaused or probabilistic, challenging the principle of universal causality.

Argument	Key Premise	Strength	Weakness
Kalam	Everything that begins to exist has a cause	Aligns with Big Bang theory	What caused God?
Thomistic	Everything in motion is put in motion by something else	Systematic & comprehensive	Unmoved mover doesn’t imply personal God
Leibnizian	Every contingent fact has a sufficient reason	Emphasizes intelligibility of universe	Vague concept of ‘sufficient reason’