Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Results 1 to 2 of 2
  1. #1
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    San Diego, CA
    Post Thanks / Like

    Aquinas Method - KCA

    The following is an example of the Aquinas Method of Writing using the traditional "5-Step Model." The first part is the Outline of the Argument, the 2nd part is the thesis. This was an actual assignment submitted in a university epistemology class.

    This is not an exhaustive argument for the Cosmological Argument. Its purpose is not to defend the Cosmological Argument nor all the many sub-arguments relative to it. This thread/essay serves the purpose of a simple/moderate exploration of an idea/position through the use of a specific method of writing and argument creation. Due to the scope of the CA and the limitations of the assignment, several key arguments and points were intentionally left out, not argued for but presumed, or merely mentioned in passing.


    The Outline

    The Existence of God:
    The Cosmological Argument

    STEP ONE: Is it reasonable to believe in the existence of God? Many atheists and practically all fideists assert that either there is no reasonable way to come to believe in God or that the reasons offered are fallacious. I reject the position that belief in God is unreasonable or that we cannot come to a conclusion about God’s existence and will instead argue that there are reasons to believe in God, specifically from two forms of the Cosmological Argument.

    STEP TWO: "Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning." Al-Ghazli (1058 AD – 1111 AD), Muslim Philosopher


    Argument One: Al-Ghazali’s Kalam Cosmological Argument (summarized*)

    P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

    P2: The universe began to exist.

    C: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

    Argument Two: Aquinas’ Contingency Cosmological Argument

    P1: Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

    P2: If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

    P3: The universe exists.

    P4: Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).

    C: Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).


    Counter-Argument One

    P1: The Principle of Causation is observed only in the macro universe.

    P2: Quantum Mechanics is the study of the micro-universe (which is believed to be the state of being prior to the current macro universe).

    P3: Quantum Mechanics shows that virtual particles spontaneously appear without being caused.

    C: Therefore, causation is not necessary for the macro universe.

    Counter-Argument Two

    P1: A personal cause requires a personal being.

    P2: But there is no reason why we should think that the cause is indeed personal.

    P3: Likewise, it is fallacious to infer that there is only one cause.

    C: Therefore, the conclusion that God, a single, personal being is the first cause is without merit.


    Reply to Counter-Argument One

    The quantum world does seem, on the surface level at least, to throw causality into question. However, it is insufficient as an objection to the Cosmological Argument for several reasons, two of which I’ll provide here.

    First, that causality doesn’t apply is based on the Copenhagen interpretation, but it is one of many models, none of which are fully accepted as QM is still an area that much is unknown. There are many deterministic models that are growing in popularity.

    Second, the “nothing” or “pre-universe” studied in QM is not the same as actual nothingness. The vacuum state in which QM is investigated is a rich, fluctuating state of energy. Thus, there is “something.” The total state of non-being is not the state and it is the state of sheer nothingness that we ought to begin, and it is this state that the Cosmological argument does begin. Thus, the objection is guilty of the fallacy of equivocation.

    Reply to Counter-Argument Two

    There are several reasons why the first cause is said to be personal. But the charge here is that there are none and that it is fallacious to think that there can be only one cause.

    When we say universe, we mean all of space-time reality, including all matter and energy. So, if the universe has a cause, then the cause must be nonphysical, immaterial and beyond space and time (transcendent). There are only two kinds of things that can have these qualities: abstract objects (like numbers) or a mind (specifically, an unembodied mind). Since abstract objects cannot cause anything, the First Cause must be a transcendent mind. And it is this Mind that we commonly refer to as “God.”

    As to the notion that the Cosmological Argument is guilty of inferring that there must be a single cause, this objection falls flat in light of Ockham’s Razor. That is, we are justified in inferring that the cause is singular in light of the principle of not multiplying explanations. To suggest that there must be or should be more than one cause when there are no good reasons to do so would be unreasonable.

    * Summarized by Dr. William Lane Craig

    ---------- Post added at 04:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:59 PM ----------



    Many people believe that it is unreasonable to believe in God. They say that there are no reasons to believe in God and as such, belief in a higher power is tradition or superstition. However, throughout history, many arguments have been given for the existence of God. These arguments are laid upon a foundation of philosophical reasoning. One such argument is the Cosmological Argument. It has many forms and I will briefly provide two of those forms in my thesis. In addition, I will provide a couple of the more popular counter-arguments and address them as well. Lastly, the issue of God’s existence is one that has been debated since the ancients. Arguments for and against can be quite complex. Entire books and dissertations have been written about the matter and I do not pretend to think that I can cover every angle of every sub-argument and counter-argument. My attempt here is to summarize the more popular points and simply make the case that it is not true that there is no ground to stand one when it comes to having reasonable faith in God.

    The Argument

    "Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning." Al-Ghazli (1058 AD – 1111 AD), Muslim Philosopher.

    The first argument is from causation. Simply put, everything which has a beginning must have a cause. And since the universe has a beginning (as evidenced by current scientific data such as expansion of the universe and the depletion of usable energy), it must have a cause. And by universe, we mean all of space-time reality. Now, things do not pop into existence arbitrarily. All things require a cause. Also, something cannot cause itself for it would have to be in a state of being prior to acting (causing), so for something to cause itself is circular.

    Of the First Cause, we can at least know a few things. We know for example that it must transcend space and time; therefore it must be immaterial and nonphysical. It must also be incredibly powerful to have created all matter and energy. Lastly, it must be personal as only a Mind could fit the above description of the First Cause. As we’ll see, opponents of the KCA object to the idea of a personal cause, so we’ll address it in more detail later.

    Another form of the Cosmological Argument is one from Contingency (first made famous by Aquinas and later popularized by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz). Essentially, it argues that everything that exists has an explanation of its existence either by necessity of its own nature or through an external cause. And if the universe has an explanation, that explanation must be God. Since the universe exists, it has an explanation, and therefore God exists as its explanation.

    Usually, the focal point here is the premise that the explanation must be God. But let’s think about the possibilities here for a moment given what we know thus far. We know that the First Cause must be nonphysical and immaterial, a being that is beyond space and time. There are only two sorts of things that could fit that description: an abstract object like a number or an unembodied mind (obviously, we are arguing for dualism here). But abstract objects do not possess the properties of causation, they cannot cause anything. That is a part of what it means to be abstract. Therefore, the First Cause must be an unembodied Mind, and this is what believers refer to as God.

    Counter-Arguments and Replies

    Some would argue that the KCA (Kalam Cosmological Argument) is untrue because it rests on the principle of causation. And while we certainly believe that it applies to our everyday world, or our universe on a macro level, it doesn’t apply to the realm of quantum mechanics (the micro-level). They point out that subatomic particles (or “virtual particles”) come into being from nothing and this invalidates the premises in the KCA.

    But this is an abuse of science as well as just a play on words. The theories concerning QM (quantum mechanics) here have to do with particles originating as a fluctuation of the energy that is contained in an existing vacuum. “Nothing” here, in physics, does not mean “sheer nothingness” or a state of non-being, instead it is a sea of fluctuating energy that is governed by physical laws and having a physical structure.

    In other words, “nothing” as it pertains to the context in which the KCA is formed, does not mean just “empty space”. Nothing is the absence of anything whatsoever, even space itself. I think this is similar to the difference between philosophies of Parmenides and Democritus about the state of non-being. There needs to be a distinction between such states, using language to circumvent argumentation is neither productive nor is it intellectually honest.

    Another objection may be that while there may be a first cause, it is not necessarily the case that it must be personal. But as I’ve already shown, the First Cause, containing the properties that it has, must be either an abstract object or an unembodied Mind (which of course, means it is personal). And since it cannot be an abstract object, it must be an unembodied Mind.

    But this is not the only reason for believing the First Cause must be personal. The First Cause, transcending time and space, is eternal, it is timeless. But the universe is a temporal effect. That is, we have a temporal effect but a timeless cause.

    Let’s take the example of a race car going around a track at 200mph. The cause of reaching 200mph is the acceleration of the car up to 200mph. If the car had always been traveling at 200mph, then it would be impossible for the car to begin to travel from 0, to 25, to 50, to 100, to 200mph. But the car did begin to travel and it did begin to accelerate up to 200mph. Likewise, the universe did begin to exist. The cause of the universe has always been there, since it is timeless. But the effect (the universe) is not. This begs the question of course as to “Why not?” Shouldn’t the universe have been always there since the cause is?

    Ghazali argued that a being with free will is the solution to the problem. God’s creating the universe is a free act that does not depend upon any existing conditions. This allows God’s act of creating to be something spontaneous and new and its effect to be temporal. And as Dr. William Lane Craig explains, “the act of creation is simultaneous with the existence of the universe. God is timeless in His state of being without the universe, but when the universe is created He is in time”.


    I have argued that belief in God can be reasonable, that there are arguments for God’s existence and these arguments are not centered on tradition or superstition, but rather reason and philosophy. I have presented two arguments to support my conclusion. I have also addressed a couple of potential opposing arguments and exposed the problems with these counter-arguments.
    Last edited by Apokalupsis; May 2nd, 2012 at 05:51 PM.
    Senior Administrator

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson

  2. Likes Lukecash12 liked this post
  3. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Aquinas Method - KCA

    Great way of writing you shared above.



Similar Threads

  1. God: Atheists, answer this regarding the KCA
    By jinny1 in forum Religion
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: April 10th, 2012, 01:43 PM
  2. Aquinas' First Cause, Is it Really Sound?
    By gameovr92 in forum Religion
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: October 11th, 2011, 07:54 PM
  3. KCA vs CTMU -* For Brave Souls Only! *
    By PerVirtuous in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 5th, 2005, 05:45 AM
  4. One Science Method
    By Montalban in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: December 1st, 2004, 12:44 PM


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts