Cosmological Argument and Occasionalism

The Cosmological Argument

It was Thomas Aquinas who developed the concept of the Cosmological Argument, which actually is based on the observation regarding the universe. It is basically a posteriori type of an argument which says that every event and an individual thing have a reason for its being and for why it changes as it does. All of the events and the individual things are dependant upon some other thing or an event to account for their existence. If there is no cause, then nothing would exist or be comprehensible. If the final or eventual cause it self does not exist, or if there is no explanation for the existence of anything, or if the causal sequence itself is infinite or endless, then nothing in this world would ever exist or would ever happen and we wouldn't be able to comprehend anything at all. But the fact is that things do happen and they happen here and now. This means that there is some eventual or the final cause which is not caused by anything itself, and the ultimate cause is god.

Another way to state this is that just like every thing and every event is dependant upon something else for its existence, this means that the whole order of things, which is the universe is also dependant on something else for the reason that it exists, else there would only be a never ending chain of causes causing causes, an infinite regression which would result in nothing to account for why the universal does exist. The other thing (god) does not really depend on anything or anyone and this existence of god is called 'necessary'.

The rejection of Thomas Aquinas basically applies to the vertical sequence of comprehension because of which the thing which seems impossible is actually regarded as possible right now. This means that it is possible that the existence of the universal has always been eternal and there never was any particular moment for its creation. If that is possible, then the cosmological argument cannot make any assumption regarding the ultimate beginning of history.

If we want to get to the reason for existence of anything right now, then we have to make this assumption that that other thing also exists right now. This sequence cannot continue indefinitely because there can never be anything that eventually is the reason for the existence of anything right now. Therefore, there must be a cause that is not dependant on anything else for its existence and it must exist necessarily instead of contingently and that cause is none other then god.

Hume's Objection Regarding the Cosmological Argument

Hume believes that there is no reason to assume that everything has to have a reason or a cause through which its existence could be understood and explained. There bare no concrete observations through which we can determine the claim of the causal principle, that is, the principle which claims that everything has a cause.

He believes that the Cosmological Argument commits to the fallacy ...