 The cosmological argument is, as it’s name sugessts (from the greek cosmos, meaning ‘universe’ or ‘world’). An a posteriori argument for the existence of god. This means that, unlike the ontological argument, it does not seek to prove god’s existence from a definition of the concept of god but rather from an analysis of our experiences of the world about us.this reference to the world, we should add, gives the argument, and indeed all other a posteriori arguments, it’s distintive form as a proof.  It is not a proof in that it seeks to demonstrate, following anslem and descartes, that the denial of god’s existence is self- contradictory, but a proof in that it seeks to show how unreasonable that denial is, given the weight of evidence against it. It bases it’s case, in other words, on what is the most plausible explanations for the various experiences we have of the world. It does not argue,therefore, that the explanation it offers is the only logically possible one but rather that, on the evidence gathered, it is the only likely explanation that can be presented beyond rational doubt.

 The argument from motion.  The argument from cause.  The argument from contingency.  The argument from perfection.  The argument from design.

 It is an posteriori truth that some things are in motion and A thing that moves must be caused to move by something else, that is, it cannot move unless its potentiality is actualized by something already in a state of actuality. Since, however, nothing can be simultaneously in a state of potentiality and actuality, nothing can move itself. Hence whatever moves must be caused to move by something else, and so on. There cannot, however, be an infinite series of things causing movement to take place. For if there were no first mover there would be no subsequent movers and thus no present motion, which is contrary to our experience. Thus the series of ‘moved movers’ implies on ‘unmoved mover’, a mover that is not itself moved by something else, and this is god.

 In the case of the argument from contingency, the distinction drawn between the universe and God is that the existence of the universe is contingent, i.e. that the universe could have not existed. Everything that exists contingently, the argument from contingency claims, has a cause of its existence. As the universe is contingent, then, the universe has a cause of its existence, and that cause is God.  The uncaused existence of God, whose existence is not contingent but rather is necessary, is consistent with the initial claim of this argument: “Everything contingent has a cause.” Again, then, God’s uncaused existence does not give rise to the problem encountered in the discussion of the simple cosmological argument above.

 The argument from contingency draws on the distinction between things that exist necessarily and things that exist contingently.  Each of these two forms of the cosmological argument, then, evades the objection introduced above in a distinct way. The first does so by distinguishing between things that have a beginning in time and things that do not. The second does so by distinguishing between things that are contingent and things that are necessary.  In each case it is argued that the universe is of the former kind, that God is of the latter kind, and that the principle that everything has a cause applies only to things of the former kind, and therefore not to God.