Cosmological argument 6516 226070372 2008-07-16T18:19:30Z Nsaa 113357 Reverted edits by [[Special:Contributions/77.107.96.62|77.107.96.62]] to last version by 12.208.25.100 (using [[WP:HG|Huggle]]) {{Cleanup|date=June 2008}} The '''cosmological argument''' is an [[argument]] for the [[existence of God]] or a "[[First Cause]]". It is traditionally known as an "'''argument from universal causation'''", an "'''argument from first cause'''", the "'''causal argument'''", and also as an "'''uncaused cause'''" or "'''unmoved mover'''" argument. Whichever term employed, there are three basic variants of the argument, each with subtle yet important distinctions: the arguments from [[Causality|causation]], ''[[in esse]]'' and ''[[in fieri]]'', and the argument from [[Contingency (philosophy)|contingency]]. == History of the argument == [[Image:Sanzio 01 Plato Aristotle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|[[Plato]] and [[Aristotle]], depicted here in [[Raphael]]'s ''[[The School of Athens]]'', both developed first cause arguments.]] [[Plato]] (c. 427–347 BCE) and [[Aristotle]] (c. 384–322 BCE) both posited first cause arguments, though each had certain notable caveats. Plato posited a basic argument in ''[[The Laws]]'' (Book X), in which he argued that motion in the world and the [[Cosmos]] was "imparted motion" that required some kind of "self-originated motion" to set it in motion and to maintain that motion.<ref>"Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God", in ''Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (1967), Vol. 2, p232 ''ff''.</ref> Plato also posited a "[[demiurge]]" of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the creator of the Cosmos in his work ''[[Timaeus (dialogue)|Timaeus]]''. For Plato, the demiurge lacked the [[supernatural]] ability to create ''[[ex nihilo]]'' (out of nothing). It was only able to organize the ''[[Timaeus (dialogue)#Purpose of the universe|ananke]]'' (necessity), the only other co-existent element or presence in Plato's [[cosmogony]]. Aristotle also put forth the idea of a First Cause, often referred to as the "[[Primum movens|Prime Mover]]" or "[[Unmoved Mover]]" ({{Polytonic|πρῶτον κινοῦν ἀκίνητον}} or ''primus motor'') in his work ''[[Metaphysics (Aristotle)|Metaphysics]]''. For Aristotle too, as for Plato, the underlying essence of the [[Universe]] always was in existence and always would be (which in turn follows [[Parmenides]]' famous statement that "nothing can come from nothing"). Aristotle posited an underlying ''[[ousia]]'' (essence or substance) of which the Universe was composed, and it was this ''ousia'' that the Prime Mover organized and set into motion. The Prime Mover did not organize matter physically, but was instead a being who constantly thought about thinking itself, and who organized the Cosmos by making matter the object of "aspiration or desire".<ref>"Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God", in ''Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (1967), Vol. 2, p233 ''ff''.</ref> The Prime Mover was, to Aristotle, a "thinking on thinking", an [[Eternity|eternal]] process of pure thought. Centuries later, the [[Islamic]] [[philosopher]] [[Avicenna]] (c. 980-1037 CE) initiated a full-fledged inquiry into the question of [[being]], in which he distinguished between [[essence]] (''Mahiat'') and [[existence]] (''Wujud''). He argued that the fact of existence could not be inferred from or accounted for by the essence of existing things, and that form and matter by themselves could not originate and interact with the movement of the Universe or the progressive actualization of existing things. Thus, he reasoned that existence must be due to an [[Causality|agent cause]] that necessitates, imparts, gives, or adds existence to an essence. To do so, the cause must coexist with its effect and be an existing thing.<ref name="Islam in Britannica">{{cite encyclopedia|last= |first= | authorlink= | title=Islam |year=2007| encyclopedia=Encyclopedia Britannica Online | accessdate=2007-11-27|location=|publisher=|url=http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-69190/Islam}}</ref> [[Thomas Aquinas]] (c. 1225–1274 CE), probably the best-known [[theologian]] of [[Middle Ages|Medieval Europe]], adapted the argument he found in his reading of Aristotle and Avicenna to form one of the most influential versions of the cosmological argument.<ref>Scott David Foutz, [http://www.quodlibet.net/aqu5ways.shtml An Examination of Thomas Aquinas' Cosmological Arguments as found in the Five Ways], ''Quodlibet Online Journal of Christian Theology and Philosophy''</ref> His conception of First Cause was the idea that the Universe must have been caused by something that was itself uncaused, which he asserted was [[God]]. Many other philosophers and theologians have posited cosmological arguments both before and since Aquinas. The versions sampled in the following sections are representative of the most common derivations of the argument. == The argument == The cosmological argument could be stated as follows: # Every finite and [[Contingency (philosophy)|contingent]] being has a cause. # Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself. # A [[Causality|causal chain]] cannot be of infinite length. # Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist. According to the argument, the existence of the Universe requires an explanation, and the creation of the Universe by a First Cause, generally assumed to be God, is that explanation. In light of the [[Big Bang theory]], a stylized version of argument has emerged (sometimes called the [[Kalam cosmological argument]], the following form of which was set forth by [[William Lane Craig]]<ref>Craig, William L. "The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe." ''Truth Journal''. Leadership University. 22 Jun. 2008 <http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html>.</ref>): # Whatever begins to exist has a cause. # The Universe began to exist. # Therefore, the Universe had a cause. === A more detailed discussion of the argument === [[Image:Universe expansion.png|thumb|200px|Modern thinkers sometimes cite evidence for the [[Big Bang]] to support the claim that the Universe began to exist a finite time ago.]] A basic explanation of the cosmological argument could be stated as follows: :Consider some event in the Universe. No matter what event you choose, it will be the result of some cause, or, more likely, a very complex set of causes. Each of those causes is the result of some other set of causes, which are, in turn, the results of yet other causes. Thus, there is an enormous chain of events in the Universe, with the earlier events causing the latter. Either this chain has a beginning, or it does not. Currently, the theory of the cosmological history of the Universe most widely accepted by [[astronomy|astronomers]] and [[astrophysics|astrophysicists]] today includes an apparent first event, the [[Big Bang]], an expansion of all known matter and energy from an infinitely dense [[Gravitational singularity|singularity]] at some finite time in the past. Although contemporary versions of the cosmological argument most typically assume that there was a beginning to the cosmic chain of physical or natural causes, the early formulations of the argument did not have the benefit of this degree of theoretical insight. The Big Bang theory, however, does not address the issue of the origin of the primordial singularity, so it does not address the issue of a First Cause in an absolute sense. [[Plato]]'s [[demiurge]] and [[Aristotle]]'s [[Primum movens|Prime Mover]] each referred to a being who, they speculated, set in motion an already existing [[essence]] of the Cosmos. A millennium and a half later, [[Thomas Aquinas]] argued for an "[[Primum movens|Uncaused Cause]]" (''ex motu''), which he called God. To Aquinas, it remained logically possible that the Universe had already existed for an infinite amount of time and would continue to exist for an infinite amount of time. In his ''[[Summa Theologica]]'', he argued that, even if the Universe had always existed (a notion he rejected on other grounds), there would still be the question of cause, or even of First Cause. [[Image:St-thomas-aquinas.jpg|thumb|left|180px|[[Thomas Aquinas]] developed an argument from contingency.]] === The argument from contingency === In the [[scholasticism|scholastic]] era, it was unknown whether the Universe had a beginning or whether it had always existed, at least in terms of that for which reason alone could account. As a matter of faith, the beginning of the world was believed by [[Christians]]. To account for both possibilities, [[Aquinas]] formulated the "argument from [[contingency]]", following [[Aristotle]] in claiming that there must be something to explain why the Universe exists. Since the Universe could, under different circumstances, conceivably ''not'' exist (contingency), its existence must have a cause - not merely another contingent thing, but something that exists by [[Causality#Necessary_and_sufficient_causes|necessity]] (something that ''must'' exist in order for anything else to exist).<ref>''Summa Theologiae, I :'' 2,3</ref> In other words, even if the Universe has always existed, it still owes its existence to an [[Primum movens|Uncaused Cause]],<ref>Aquinas was an ardent student of Aristotle's works, a significant number of which had only recently been translated into Latin by [[Ibn-Rushd]], also known as [[Averroes]].</ref> although Aquinas used the words "...and this we understand to be God."<ref>''Summa Theologiae, I : '' 2,3</ref> Aquinas's argument from contingency is distinct from a first cause argument, since it assumes the possibility of a Universe that has no beginning in time. It is, rather, a form of argument from universal [[Causality|causation]]. Aquinas observed that, in nature, there were things with contingent existences. Since it is possible for such things not to exist, there must be some time at which these things did not in fact exist. Thus, according to Aquinas, there must have been a time when nothing existed. If this is so, there would exist nothing that could bring anything into existence. Contingent beings, therefore, are insufficient to account for the existence of contingent beings: there must exist a ''[[Causality#Necessary_and_sufficient_causes|necessary]]'' being whose non-existence is an impossibility, and from which the existence of all contingent beings is derived. The German philosopher [[Gottfried Leibniz]] made a similar argument with his [[principle of sufficient reason]] in [[1714]]. "There can be found no fact that is true or existent, or any true proposition," he wrote, "without there being a sufficient reason for its being so and not otherwise, although we cannot know these reasons in most cases." He formulated the cosmological argument succinctly: "Why is there something rather than nothing? The sufficient reason [...] is found in a substance which [...] is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself."<ref>''Monadologie'' (1714). [[Nicholas Rescher]], trans., 1991. ''The Monadology: An Edition for Students''. Uni. of Pittsburg Press. [http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/pdf/leibmon.pdf Jonathan Bennett's translation.] [http://www.rbjones.com/rbjpub/philos/classics/leibniz/monad.htm Latta's translation.]</ref> [[Aristotelianism|Aristotelian]] philosopher [[Mortimer J. Adler]] devised a refined argument from contingency in his book ''How to Think About God'': # The existence of an effect requiring the concurrent existence and action of an efficient cause implies the existence and action of that cause. # The Cosmos as a whole exists. # The existence of the Cosmos as a whole is radically contingent (meaning that it needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence to preserve it in being, and prevent it from being annihilated, or reduced to nothing). # If the Cosmos needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence, then that cause must be a supernatural being, supernatural in its action, and one the existence of which is uncaused, in other words, the Supreme Being, or God. His premise for confirming all of these points was this: <blockquote> The Universe as we know it today is not the only Universe that can ever exist in time. We can infer it from the fact that the arrangement and disarray, the order and disorder, of the present Cosmos might have been otherwise. That it might have been different from what it is. That which cannot be otherwise also cannot not exist; and conversely, what necessarily exists can not be otherwise than it is. Therefore, a Cosmos which can be otherwise is one that also cannot be; and conversely, a Cosmos that is capable of not existing at all is one that can be otherwise than it now is. Applying this insight to the fact that the existing Cosmos is merely one of a plurality of possible universes, we come to the conclusion that the Cosmos, radically contingent in existence, would not exist at all were its existence not caused. A merely possible Cosmos cannot be an uncaused Cosmos. A Cosmos that is radically contingent in existence, and needs a cause of that existence, needs a supernatural cause, one that exists and acts to exnihilate this merely possible Cosmos, thus preventing the realization of what is always possible for merely a possible Cosmos, namely, its absolute non-existence or reduction to nothingness. </blockquote> Adler concludes that there exists a necessary being to preserve the Cosmos in existence. God must be there to sustain the Universe even if the Universe is eternal. Beginning by rejecting belief in a creating God, Adler finds evidence for a sustaining God. Thus, the existence of a sustaining God also becomes grounds for asserting the creating activity. The idea of a created Universe with a beginning an, most likely, an end now becomes more plausible than the idea of an [[Eternity|eternal]] Universe. Adler believes that "to affirm that the world or Cosmos had an absolute beginning, that it was exnihilated at an initial instant, would be tantamount to affirming the existence of God, the world's exnihilator."<ref>[http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1995/PSCF3-95Cramer.html Science in Christian Perspective<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> === ''"In esse"'' and ''"in fieri"'' === The difference between the arguments from causation ''[[in fieri]]'' and ''[[in esse]]'' is a fairly important one. ''In fieri'' is generally translated as "becoming", while ''in esse'' is generally translated as "in existence". ''In fieri'', the process of becoming, is similar to building a house. Once it is built, the builder walks away, and it stands on its own accord. (It may require occasional maintenance, but that is beyond the scope of the first cause argument.) ''In esse'' (in existence) is more akin to the light from a candle or the liquid in a vessel. George Hayward Joyce, [[Society of Jesus|SJ]], explained that "...where the light of the candle is dependent on the candle's continued existence, not only does a candle produce light in a room in the first instance, but its continued presence is necessary if the illumination is to continue. If it is removed, the light ceases. Again, a liquid receives its shape from the vessel in which it is contained; but were the pressure of the containing sides withdrawn, it would not retain its form for an instant." This form of the argument is far more difficult to separate from a purely first cause argument than is the example of the house's maintenance above, because here the First Cause is insufficient without the candle's or vessel's continued existence.<ref>Joyce, George Hayward (1922) ''Principles of Natural Theology''. NY: Longmans Green.</ref> Thus, [[Aristotle]]'s argument is ''in fieri'', while [[Aquinas]]' argument is both ''in fieri'' and ''in esse'' (plus an additional argument from [[Contingency (philosophy)|contingency]]). This distinction is an excellent example of the difference between a [[deistic]] view (Aristotle) and a [[theistic]] view (Aquinas). [[Gottfried Leibnitz|Leibnitz]], who wrote more than two centuries before the [[Big Bang]] was taken for granted, was arguing ''in esse''. As a general trend, the modern slants on the cosmological argument, including the [[Kalam cosmological argument|Kalam argument]], tend to lean very strongly towards an ''in fieri'' argument. == Objections and counterarguments == === Existence of a First Cause === One objection to the argument is that it leaves open the question of why the First Cause is unique in that it does not require a cause. Proponents argue that the First Cause is exempt from having a cause, while opponents argue that it is not.<ref name=reichenbach>Reichenbach, Bruce, "Cosmological Argument", ''The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2006 Edition)'', Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2006/entries/cosmological-argument/>.</ref> The problem with arguing for the First Cause's exemption is that it [[begs the question]] of why the First Cause is indeed exempt.<ref name=cline>Cline, Austin. "Cosmological Argument: Does the Universe Require a First Cause?" ''About.com: Agnosticism/Atheism''. 20 Jun. 2008 <http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsforgod/a/cosmological.htm>.</ref> Attempts to resolve this problem often, though not necessarily, lead to [[Ad_hoc#Ad_hoc_hypothesis|ad hoc hypotheses]] and/or [[special pleading]] [[fallacies]]. Secondly, the premise of [[causality]] has been arrived at via ''[[a posteriori]]'' ([[Inductive reasoning|inductive]]) reasoning, which is dependent on experience. [[David Hume]] highlighted this [[problem of induction]] and showed that [[Causality|causal relations]] were not true ''[[A priori and a posteriori (philosophy)|a priori]]'' ([[Deductive reasoning|deductively]]). Even though causality applies to the known world, it does not necessarily apply to the Universe at large. In other words, it is unwise to draw conclusions from an extrapolation of causality beyond experience.<ref name=reichenbach/> On a similar note, while it is true that the Universe as we know it had a beginning (the [[Big Bang]]), that does not necessarily imply that our Universe is all that is. Thus, opponents argue that the argument has not been sufficiently established so as to vindicate the existence of a First Cause, and, therefore, is an [[argument from ignorance]], specifically a [[God of the gaps#The "God-of-the-gaps argument" in modern usage|God-of-the-gaps]] argument. Additionally, it is argued that [[Occam's razor]] can be used against the argument, showing how the argument fails using both the efficient and conserving types of causality.<ref>Kaye, Sharon. "William of Ockham." ''The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy''. 20 Jun. 2008 <http://www.iep.utm.edu/o/ockham.htm>.</ref> === Identity of a First Cause === Another objection is that even if one accepts the argument as a proof of a First Cause, it does not identify that First Cause with God. The argument does not ascribe to the First Cause some of the basic attributes commonly associated with, for instance, a [[theistic]] God, such as [[immanence]] or [[omnibenevolence]].<ref name=cline/> Rather, it simply argues that a First Cause must exist. Despite this, there exist theistic arguments that attempt to extract such attributes.<ref>Craig, William L. "Initial Arguments: A Defense of the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God." ''Leadership University''. 20 Jun. 2008 <http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-smith1.html>.</ref> Furthermore, if one chooses to accept God as the First Cause, God's continued interaction with the Universe is not required. This is the foundation for beliefs such as [[deism]] that accept that a God created the Universe, but then ceased to have any further interaction with it.<ref>"deism." ''The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition''. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. ''Answers.com'' 20 Jun. 2008. http://www.answers.com/topic/deism</ref> == Scientific positions == [[Image:Gas particle movement.svg|right|thumb|"[[Gas]] [[molecules]] may bounce against the walls of a container without requiring anything or anyone to get them moving."]] The argument for a Prime Mover is based on the scientific foundation of [[Newtonian physics]] and its earlier predecessors — the idea that a body at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by an outside force. However, while [[Newton]]'s ideas survive in [[physics]] today, since they conveniently and easily describe the movement of objects at the human (that is, not cosmic or atomic) level, they no longer represent the most accurate and truthful representations of the physical Universe. Some scientists feel that the development of the [[laws of thermodynamics]] in the 19th century and [[quantum physics]] in the 20th century have weakened a purely scientific expression of the cosmological argument.<ref>* Michio Kaku. ''[[Hyperspace (book)|Hyperspace: A Scientific Odyssey Through Parallel Universes, Time Warps, and the Tenth Dimension]]''. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. ISBN 0-19-286189-1</ref> Modern physics has many examples of bodies being moved without any moving body, seriously undermining the first premise of the Prime Mover argument: every object in motion must be moved by another object in motion. Physicist [[Michio Kaku]] directly addresses the cosmological argument in his book ''[[Hyperspace (book)|Hyperspace]]'', saying that it is easily dismissed by the [[law of conservation of energy]] and the laws governing [[molecular physics]]. He quotes one of many examples — "[[gas]] [[molecules]] may bounce against the walls of a container without requiring anything or anyone to get them moving." According to Kaku, these particles could move forever, without beginning or end. So, there is no need for a First Mover to explain the origins of motion.<ref>* Michio Kaku. ''[[Hyperspace (book)|Hyperspace: A Scientific Odyssey Through Parallel Universes, Time Warps, and the Tenth Dimension]]''. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. ISBN 0-19-286189-1</ref> It does not provide an explanation for the reason those molecules exist in the first place, though. Moreover, it is argued that a challenge to the cosmological argument is the nature of time. The [[Big Bang theory]] states that it is the point in which all [[dimensions]] came into existence, the start of both [[space]] and [[time]]. Then, the question "What was there before the Universe?" makes no sense; the concept of "before" becomes meaningless when considering a situation without time, and thus the concepts of cause and effect so necessary to the cosmological argument no longer apply. This has been put forward by [[Stephen Hawking]], who said that asking what occurred before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the [[North Pole]].<ref>[http://hayadan.org.il/english/hawking_in_israel.html Transcript of Stephan Hawking's lecture "The Origin Of The Universe" in the Hebrew University In Jerusalem], December 14th, 2006</ref> However, some cosmologists and physicists do attempt to investigate what could have occurred before the Big Bang, using such scenarios as the collision of [[brane]]s to give a cause for the Big Bang.<ref>Britt, Robert R. "'Brane-Storm' Challenges Part of Big Bang Theory." ''Space.com''. 18 Apr. 2001. 21 Jun. 2008 <http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/bigbang_alternative_010413-3.html>.</ref> == Arguments in Islamic theology and philosophy == [[Image:AverroesColor.jpg|thumb|right|Ibn Rushd, better known in the west as [[Averroes]], was an Islamic thinker who developed the [[Kalam cosmological argument]].]] === God as the First Cause === {{main|Kalam cosmological argument}} [[Ash'ari]] theologians rejected [[Causality|cause and effect]], in essence, but accepted it as something that facilitated humankind's investigation and comprehension of natural processes. These medieval scholars argued that [[Nature]] was composed of uniform [[atoms]] that were "recreated" at every instant by God. The laws of Nature were only the customary sequence of apparent causes (customs of God), the ultimate cause of each accident being God himself.<ref>Robert G. Mourison (2002)</ref> As argued by [[Avicenna]], the Universe consists of a chain of actual beings, each giving existence to the one below it and responsible for the existence of the rest of the chain. Because an [[actual infinite]] is deemed impossible, this chain as a whole must terminate in a being that is wholly [[Divine simplicity|simple]] and one, whose essence is its very existence, and is therefore self-sufficient and not in need of something else to give it existence. Because its existence is not [[Contingency (philosophy)|contingent]] on or necessitated by something else, but is [[Causality#Necessary_and_sufficient_causes|necessary]] and [[Eternity|eternal]] in itself, it satisfies the condition of being the necessitating cause of the entire chain that constitutes the eternal world of contingent existing things.<ref name="Islam in Britannica"/> === God as the Necessary Existent === The [[ontological]] form of the cosmological argument, which was put forward by Avicenna, is known as the contingency and necessity argument (''Imakan wa Wujub''). Avicenna's proof for the [[existence of God]], in the "Metaphysics" section of ''[[The Book of Healing]]'', was the first [[ontological argument]].<ref>Johnson (1984), pp. 161–171.</ref><ref>{{citation|last=Morewedge|first=P.|title=Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Malcolm and the Ontological Argument|journal=Monist|volume=54|pages=234-49}}</ref> This was the first attempt at using the method of [[a priori (philosophy)|a priori proof]], which utilizes [[intuition]] and [[reason]] alone. Avicenna's proof is unique in that it can be classified as both a cosmological argument and an ontological argument. It is ontological insofar as "[[Causality#Necessary_and_sufficient_causes|necessary]] existence" in intellect is the first basis for arguing for a Necessary Existent. The proof is also cosmological insofar as most of it is taken up with arguing that contingent existents cannot stand alone and must end in a Necessary Existent.<ref>{{citation|first=Toby|last=Mayer|title=Ibn Sina’s ‘Burhan Al-Siddiqin’|year=2001|journal=Journal of Islamic Studies|publisher=[[Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies]], Oxford Journals, [[Oxford University Press]]|volume=12|issue=1|pages=18-39}}</ref> == References == <references/> == See also == * [[Biblical cosmology]] * [[Cosmogony]] * [[Creation myth]] * [[Creation (theology)]] * [[Dating Creation]] * [[Determinism]] * [[Infinitism]] * [[Infinite regress]] * [[Quinquae viae]] * [[Temporal finitism]] * [[Timeline of the Big Bang]] * [[Unmoved mover]] == External links == *{{sep entry|cosmological-argument|Cosmological Argument|Bruce Reichenbach}} *[http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/existence.html Articles on the cosmological argument by William Lane Craig] *[http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/ap85/papers/index.html Articles on the cosmological argument by Alexander Pruss] *[http://php.indiana.edu/~toconnor/philosophical_essays.html Articles on the cosmological argument by Timothy O'Connor] *[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/cosmological.html Articles on the atheistic cosmological argument by Quentin Smith and others] *[http://stephenpimentel.tripod.com/papers/existential.html ''A Reconstruction of the "Existential Argument" for the Existence of God'' by Stephen Pimentel] *[http://www.untamedlion.com/plantinga.html ''A Scotistic Cosmological Argument Remixed'' by Josh Rasmussen] *[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/self-caused.html ''A Cosmological Argument for a Self-Caused Universe'' by Quentin Smith] {{God Arguments}} [[Category:Philosophy of religion]] [[Category:Theology]] [[Category:Arguments for the existence of God]] [[de:Erste Ursache]] [[he:הטיעון הקוסמולוגי]] [[nl:Onbewogen Beweger]] [[no:Det kosmologiske gudsbevis]] [[pl:Argument kosmologiczny]] [[ro:Argument cosmologic]] [[sr:Космолошки доказ постојања Бога]] [[fi:Kosmologinen todistus]] [[sv:Kosmologiska gudsbeviset]]