It has to do with cosmology, which is an extension of metaphysics that consists with the Universe as an orderly system. St. Thomas Aquinas first introduces the Cosmological argument in the Summa Theologica, where he discusses topics such as; the existence, simplicity, and will of God. St. Thomas challenges us to consider what it is about nature that makes it manifest to require God as its original cause. For Aquinas, proving the existence of God is based on asking how, and to what extent can we know God—reason and observation. His passions included the scientific reasoning of God. Studying many philosopher’s theories it is evident that their arguments are driven from two very different disciplines; epistemology and …show more content…
The universe is a result of something or someone and as such cannot be self-explanatory. The argument that Aquinas tries to make is that, everything does not need to have a cause, yet every effect must have a cause. God, as the first cause, is not an effect at all, nor can He be. Therefore, the argument for infinite regress is based on an extremely weak supposition that everything needs to have a cause. Furthermore, believing that St. Thomas’ argument is primarily a priori is another problem with Hume’s criticism. The cosmological argument is based on synthetic a posteriori knowledge, which he should accept as