Not Just Dependent Beings A key premise in The Cosmological Argument

The first three of the five arguments are versions of the Cosmological Argument. The first is the argument from the fact that there are things that are undergoing change in the world. He conclusively reasoned that there must ultimately be a causative of the change, which is itself unchanging. Secondly, he started from the fact that the existence of some things in the world is a cause of others. He conclusively reasoned that there must be an ultimate cause of existence. the existence of this cause is uncaused. Thirdly, he started from the factual existence of some things in this world, but we can with ease, imagine that they might not be existent. that they need not have at all existed. He reasoned to the conclusion that there must be a being that had to be that exists and could not have failed to be in existence (Rowe 21). These arguments from Aquinas undoubtedly prove the existence of a changer that is unchanging, an uncaused cause and a being that could not have failed to exist. They, however, fail to show proof for the existence of an omniscient, creator, omnipotent, supremely good theistic God, who is independent of the world (Rowe 22). The Cosmological Argument thus answers the objection in its two parts, by giving prove of the existence of a being, which could not have failed and seeking to prove that the special being who exists and could not fail to do so, must posses qualities such as omnipotence, perfect goodness, omniscience e.t.c. Aquinas’ argument conclusively gives the assertion that the uncaused cause of existence, the unchanging changer, and a being that had to exist are one and the same. This being possesses all the attributes that the theistic God has (Rowe, 22). A Dependent Being For a dependent being, others’ casual activities account for its existence. another being explains its existence. It forms a concept, which combined with the Self-existent being concept (its existence explained by itself), form the first part of the Cosmological Argument. This first part of Cosmological Argument entails these concepts: 1. Every being that exists or ever existed is either self-existent or a dependent being. 2. Not every being can be a dependent being, thus, 3. There is a self-existent being (Rowe 24). The arguments in support of the premise describe an existent being as either dependent or self-existent. The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) gives a justification to this argument as opposed to the somewhat controversial Anslem’s three cases of existence of a being explained by category 1. Others 2. Nothing and 3. Itself. Anslem explains that the existence of beings falls more in category 1 and 3, than 2 (Rowe 24). Leibniz and Samuel Clarke through put forward the PSR which is an ascertainment that there must be an explanation of whatever existent being. PSR gives a demonstration to highlight the argument, that if one comes across a man in a room, then there must be an explanation that the particular man exists. A reflection in a moment, however, shows that the fact of the man being in a room, is mere, compared to other facts about the same man e.g. the fact that he is thinking about being in Paris rather than Canada, the fact that his health is good. PSR goes beyond scrutiny of the mere fact of the man

Back To Top