Maximilian Watkins

The Cosmological Argument for Gods Existence

The Cosmological Argument for Gods Existence is about the cause for the beginning of

the universe is God. The philosophers Aquinas and Reichenbach argue that God is the cause for

the universe. Aquinas defines god as the unmoved mover, or in other words the only movement

that moved without something else being the cause for the movement. Reichenbach thinks that

the explanation for the universe is God because of three reasons. The three reasons are the

Principle of Sufficient Reason only applies to contingent things, personal explanation, and that it

leads to an explanation that the universe is comprehensible. I am unsure there is enough evidence

to say God does or does not exist.

Aquinas says that everything is moved by something else. It seems like we could say that

the history of the universe has two options, which are being infinite or finite. Aquinas argues that

the universes history being infinite is impossible. This is because if the universes history is

infinite then movement would never have reached this moment in time. Since we are

experiencing movement now it seems logical that the universes history is finite. Aquinas says if

the universe is finite then there must have been a first movement. This movement cannot be

natural however, since earlier Aquinas says everything is moved by something else. So, the first

movement has to be supernatural according to Aquinas. With Aquinass definition of God being

the only movement that moved without something else being the cause of the movement, allows

Aquinas to say that the cause of the universe is God. Aquinass argument is based on Aristotles

Physics. The first way he uses Aristotles Physics is that if something moves itself it must have

the principle for movement within the motion being done, otherwise it is being moved by

something else and it must be primarily moved. Which means that it must be moved by itself not

a part of itself. For example when an animal is moving, it is moving because its parts are moving
 Maximilian Watkins

each other. This makes it so a self-moving being must be divisible into its parts. The second way

Aquinas uses Aristotles Physics is induction. Whatever is moved by accident or violence is not

moved by itself it is moved by another. Beings such as animals who are moving themselves are

actually being moved by their soul. Also the things that are moved in nature are not moving

themselves but actually moved by a generating cause and the cause removing impediments. The

third way Aquinas uses Aristotles Physics is by saying for motion is the act of something that is

in potency inasmuch as it is in potency (149). This means that something cannot be both

potentially moving and actually moving. So, something is not both the mover and moved. Which

helps Aquinas prove in his time that nothing moves itself. Reichenbach also tries to argue for

Gods existence using a similarly structured argument.

Reichenbach believes that everyone is looking for the best explanation for what they are

researching in their field. The explanations that he talks about is the scientific or natural and the

personal. A scientific or natural explanation according to Reichenbach is it explains how the way

the world works. Whereas the personal explanation according to Reichenbach is when the

intention behind something is understood. Reichenbach also says that explanations need both a

description of what brought about the effect and why it occurred. The difference in the types of

explanations helps the readers of Reichenbach understand why he thinks the cause for the

universe is God. Reichenbach uses a modified version of Leibnitzs Principle of Sufficient

Reason to help in the construction of his Cosmological Argument. Leibnitzs Principle of

Sufficient Reason is no fact can be real or existing and no statement true unless it has sufficient

reason why it should be thus and not otherwise (152). The version Reichenbach uses is a

moderate version, which is, that which is contingent or what comes into being requires a

sufficient reason for why it exists or comes into being (152). The reason Reichenbach uses this
 Maximilian Watkins

is because he says that the contingent does not need to exist and therefore must have a reason for

existing, and something that comes into existence surely cannot come into existence by itself so

it needs a reason for coming into existence. Reichenbach believes that the universe is contingent

and that it had to come into being at some point. All of the steps Reichenbach takes leads to his

conclusion that the explanation for the universe should end with God. This is because the

Principle of Sufficient Reason only applies to things that are contingent, and since Reichenbach

believes the universe is contingent it must have some cause to why it exists. The existence for the

universe being God satisfies Reichenbachs definition of a personal explanation because it

appeals to the intentions of a conscious agent. And finally because it leads to an explanation that

the universe is comprehensible. Something Reichenbach points out at the end of the essay is that

the God that is the reason for the existence of the universe might not be the God of religion. This

is the biggest difference I see between Aquinas and Reichenbach.

Reichenbach has many more defenses for the cosmological argument in his essay and

why it needs to be used than Aquinas has in his essay. Such as his argument against Bertrand

Russel about why the universe is contingent, his argument towards David Hume with the issue of

parts and wholes, and his last major defense against Immanuel Kant about why God is a

necessary being. I believe this is because Aquinass Cosmological Argument is the Classical

Cosmological Argument, and Reichenbachs is much later in time.

However both arguments are built in a similar fashion, which is that they are both a more

scientific approach of deducing or inferring that God exists through facts or alleged facts that

concern causation, movement, contingency, and the universe being finite. All of the

Cosmological Arguments are trying to persuade the readers that God exists, and I am unsure that

without physical evidence of God the arguments can persuade the readers.
 Maximilian Watkins

I do not think that a judgement on whether or not an ultimate creator exists can be made

after just reading a few essays in the favor of Gods existence. So I am unsure whether I agree

with either Aquinas or Reichenbach. If all of the things said by them are true then I think it

would be safe to say that a God exists. But the question of whether the God is the religious or

even more specific, for Aquinas, the Catholic God, I have even more trouble with. It seems

feasible and fairly compelling with their arguments that an ultimate creator may exist, but to

label it as your personal God seems like it would be hubris. Even if the first movement was

supernatural it does not mean that there is an ultimate being. It seems just as likely that it could

have been an event without connection to some ultimate being that set the universe in motion. If

I were to believe in the existence of an ultimate being that created the universe I think I would

believe that the ultimate being was a non-interventionist deity because it allows for a higher

power without many of the seeming contradictions or it being malevolent like with the problem

of evil in the world.