Cosmological argument
[1][2][3] In referring to reason and observation alone for its premises, and precluding revelation, this category of argument falls within the domain of natural theology.
The origins of the argument date back to at least Aristotle, developed subsequently within the scholarly traditions of Neoplatonism and early Christianity, and later under medieval Islamic scholasticism through the 9th to 12th centuries.
Contemporary defenders of cosmological arguments include William Lane Craig,[4] Robert Koons,[5] John Lennox, Stephen Meyer, and Alexander Pruss.
Like Plato, Aristotle believed in an eternal cosmos with no beginning and no end (which in turn follows Parmenides' famous statement that "nothing comes from nothing").
In what he called "first philosophy" or metaphysics, Aristotle did intend a theological correspondence between the prime mover and a deity; functionally, however, he provided an explanation for the apparent motion of the "fixed stars" (now understood as the daily rotation of the Earth).
Aristotle's natural theology admitted no creation or capriciousness from the immortal pantheon, but maintained a defense against dangerous charges of impiety.
570) examined the contradiction between Greek pagan adherences to the concept of a past-eternal world and Aristotelian rejection of the existence of actual infinities.
Philosopher Steven M. Duncan notes that Philoponus's ideas eventually received their fullest articulation "at the hands of Muslim and Jewish exponents of kalam", or medieval Islamic scholasticism.
[29] Two specific properties of an essentially ordered series have significance in the context of the cosmological argument:[28] Thomistic philosopher, R. P. Phillips comments on the characteristics of essential ordering:[30] In the scholastic era, Aquinas formulated the "argument from contingency", following Aristotle, in claiming that there must be something to explain the existence of the universe.
In 1714, German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz presented a variation of the cosmological argument based upon the principle of sufficient reason.
[27] The Kalam cosmological argument's central thesis is the impossibility of an infinite temporal regress of events (or past-infinite universe).
Though a modern formulation that defends the finitude of the past through philosophical and scientific arguments, many of the argument's ideas originate in the writings of early Christian theologian John Philoponus (490–570 AD),[41] developed within the proceedings of medieval Islamic scholasticism through the 9th to 12th centuries, eventually returning to Christian theological scholarship in the 13th century.
[42] These ideas were revitalised for modern discourse by philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig through publications such as The Kalām Cosmological Argument (1979) and the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (2009).
The form of the argument popularised by Craig is expressed in two parts, as an initial deductive syllogism followed by further philosophical analysis.
[48] Defenders maintain that this question is addressed by various formulations of the cosmological argument, emphasizing that none of its major iterations rests on the premise that everything requires a cause.
[51] Various arguments have been presented to demonstrate the metaphysical impossibility of an actually infinite regress occurring in the real world, referring to thought experiments such as Hilbert's Hotel, the tale of Tristram Shandy, and variations.
[57][1] Defenders of the argument note that most formulations, such as by Aquinas, Duns Scotus and Craig, employ conceptual analysis to establish the identity of the cause.
In Aquinas's Summa Theologica, the Prima Pars (First Part) is devoted predominantly to establishing the attributes of the cause, such as uniqueness, perfection and intelligence.
[58] In Scotus's Ordinatio, his metaphysical argument is the first component of the 'triple primacy' through which he characterises the first cause as a being with the attributes of maximal excellence.
[27] In the topic of cosmic origins and the standard model of cosmology, the initial singularity of the Big Bang is postulated to be the point at which space and time, as well as all matter and energy, came into existence.
[60] He affirms that the history of 20th century cosmology belies the proposition that researchers have no strong intuition to pursue a causal explanation of the origin of time and the universe.
[61] Feser also notes that versions of the cosmological argument presented by classical philosophers do not require a commitment to the Big Bang, or even to a cosmic origin.
[63] Thus, it rejects arguments, such as by Duns Scotus, for the existence of higher-order, efficient causes that govern the basic principles of material causation.
Gott and Li refer to the curvature of spacetime and closed timelike curves as possible mechanisms by which the universe may bring about its own existence.
