Analysis of Cosmological Argument

Nature provides a compelling argument for the presence of a divine being. The cosmological argument establishes the existence of the leading cause for natural reality. According to Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica, we may explain the presence of God by looking at the sequence of active causes of light effects we see in the universe (Plato, 2015). Many renowned scientists and thinkers have been unable to prove some of nature’s most fundamental principles-philosophers who are theists exploited this failure of science to bolster their theistic beliefs about the world. As stated in the previous paragraph, the cosmological argument holds that nothing in nature can exist without the help of another entity. “The Five Ways” by Christina philosopher Saint Thomas Aquinas is famed for reasoning in this manner. The cosmological argument has since become one of the most hotly debated arguments for the existence of God. In the following paper, I will demonstrate that Aquinas’ “Five Ways” do not suffice to establish God’s presence. However, the report will verify the validity of the arguments and will present evidence to back up these claims.

The manner of motion is the first point made by Thomas Aquinas in the cosmological argument. Aquinas indicates that another person must move anything that has already been moved. If the object being moved is itself moved, then that object must likewise be moved by another, and so on. It cannot continue indefinitely since “the first mover” would not exist. The domino effect serves as a good analogy for this argument. The first domino must fall to begin the chain reaction (Aquinas, 2021). For the third proof, Thomas focuses on the contingent, non-essential items, and essential entities in the cosmos. If all creatures cannot be contingent, Aquinas posits a necessary power to cause these contingent entities. A counterargument to this theory is that the first domino was pushed by an immovable mover (God). If we reject the concept of an endless regression, then the idea of a starting unmoving mover has value, but it does not support the claim that God is the unmoved mover.

The second argument focuses on the cause of the existence of human beings. In this context, Aquinas tries to validate that everything exists for a purpose well known by a supernatural being (God). Human reasoning tells us that this argument holds because we think that everything in the universe has a beginning and an end (Aquinas, 2021, 379). For example, 212°F water boils since it has been heated to that temperature. These arguments appear reasonable; however, it is possible to raise various issues with them. In the words of philosopher David Hume, “A wise man proportions his beliefs to the evidence “(Plato, 2015). If we apply this concept to the debate, it is possible to learn nothing more than the existence of an ongoing process for creating our world rather than any proof of the existence of an almighty power at work.

The third argument focuses on the two categories of beings in this cosmos: constant and obligatory creatures. A contingent entity cannot exist unless there is a necessary one. For example, an individual and their parents are contingent beings that had to be reproduced through their initial parents. There was once nothing in the cosmos to follow this line of reasoning. This is because not all beings can be contingent, and we thus require a starting necessary being for all of this. Consequently, we cannot but recognize the existence of some being having its own need and not receiving it from another, but rather causing it in others (Aquinas, 2021). This is what Thomas Aquinas would have us accept in his discussion on the cosmology for human existence. Similarly, it is regarded as the centricity of many people when they talk about God.

However, there are still a few points of contention with this claim. Firstly, he asserts that no creature exists only for the sake of itself. Nevertheless, he concludes by arguing that only God can do so. Observing a moving item, Aquinas concludes that the ultimate immovable force must be God in his first argument. According to the author, from this point on, movement happens in any condition of change or growth, and the natural orientation is one of rest (Aquinas, 2021,379). He concludes that because nothing has the potential to create itself, there must be an uncaused first cause, God, who began the process of being. Back to Hume’s principle, this proves that there is a necessary entity, but it does not verify the existence of God.

These arguments, starting with the fourth, are recast as teleological ones, but they will still be discussed in the essay because they deal with whether God exists. The fourth of Aquinas’ four arguments focus on the evaluation of attributes. Comparing two sculptures and declaring that one is more beautiful than the other is an example of this. One of these two items is more beautiful than the other. Consequently, he must have a flawless quality in which he refers to the deity as God. This is the weakest of the five arguments since it does not stand up when applied to history or geography. Values have evolved with time and are seen differently in different parts of the world (Aquinas, 2021, 379). Racism, the oppression of women, and homosexuality were once deemed social sins that have now been legitimate (Plato, 2015). When it comes to the statue, the thought that one figure is more beautiful than the other is purely subjective. There is no way to tell something is lovelier than another.

The universe and the path of nature are the last arguments. Aquinas illustrates that when we examine natural bodies, we can observe that they always or nearly always function in the same way to get the greatest possible outcome. Therefore, it may be concluded that they operate for a purpose (Plato, 2015, 9). They attain their goal not by chance but by the drive is indeed evident. The idea that natural bodies are moving toward a purpose is antiquated. They do not have a sense since they are stationary, just like planets, rocks, or rivers. Only living things with conscious brains have a reason for existing, ensuring one’s survival.

In conclusion, the presence of God cannot be fully proven basing facts from the cosmological argument by Aquinas. No matter how hard one may try, one will never be able to prove the existence of God. The idea can still be interpreted in several ways, and people will continue to believe in it despite any arguments until substantial proof of its existence or nonexistence is shown. However, this argument succeeds in proving that there is a first cause.


Aquinas, L. X. I. I. I. (2021). From physical cosmology to theological cosmology. The analogy path. Facoltà di Filosofia Pontificia Università Lateranense, 379. Web.

Plato, W. H. D. (2015). Great dialogues of Plato. Web.

Cite this paper

Select a referencing style


AssignZen. (2023, February 3). Analysis of Cosmological Argument.

Work Cited

"Analysis of Cosmological Argument." AssignZen, 3 Feb. 2023,

1. AssignZen. "Analysis of Cosmological Argument." February 3, 2023.


AssignZen. "Analysis of Cosmological Argument." February 3, 2023.


AssignZen. 2023. "Analysis of Cosmological Argument." February 3, 2023.


AssignZen. (2023) 'Analysis of Cosmological Argument'. 3 February.

Click to copy

This report on Analysis of Cosmological Argument was written and submitted by your fellow student. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly.

Removal Request

If you are the original creator of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on Asignzen, request the removal.