# New remarks on the Cosmological Argument

**Authors:** Gustavo E. Romero, Daniela Pérez  
**arXiv:** [1202.3635](https://arxiv.org/abs/1202.3635)  
**Date:** 2012-02-16  
**Summary page:** https://www.summarizepaper.com/en/arxiv-id/1202.3635v1/

## Key points

- Authors Gustavo E. Romero and Daniela Pérez analyze the Cosmological Argument in its two main forms: Aquinas's version and the revised Kalam Cosmological Argument by William Lane Craig.
- The authors use first-order logic to ensure logical coherence between assumptions and conclusions of these arguments.
- Aquinas's argument falls short of meeting its original intentions, while the Kalam argument is deemed unsustainable due to committing the fallacy of equivocation.
- Recent advancements in cosmology challenge traditional concepts of causality used in these arguments.
- Aquinas's argument does not necessarily imply a caused origination of the universe when viewed through recent scientific developments.
- An alternative variation on Aquinas proposed by Le Poidevin is mentioned but considered weak compared to other formulations.
- The study highlights complexities and limitations of traditional cosmological arguments when examined through a modern scientific lens.

## Summary

In their paper titled "New remarks on the Cosmological Argument," authors Gustavo E. Romero and Daniela Pérez present a formal analysis of the Cosmological Argument in its two main forms: the version attributed to Aquinas and the revised Kalam Cosmological Argument advocated by William Lane Craig. The authors meticulously formulate these arguments in a way that ensures each conclusion logically follows from the corresponding assumptions in first-order logic. Their analysis reveals that the conclusion derived from Aquinas's argument falls short of meeting the demands set by his original intentions. By employing logically valid formalizations, they proceed to reinterpret the premises and conclusions of these arguments using concepts of causality consistent with recent advancements in cosmology made by physicists. The study highlights a critical flaw in the Kalam argument, pointing out that it commits the fallacy of equivocation in a manner that appears irreparable. Additionally, two premises utilized by Aquinas come under scrutiny when viewed through the lens of contemporary empirical science, particularly concerning how 'cause' and 'causality' are understood within this context. Ultimately, while there are no issues with the logical coherence between assumptions and conclusions, it is concluded that the Kalam argument is not sustainable, and Aquinas's argument does not necessarily imply a caused origination of the universe. The assumptions inherent in Aquinas's argument are deemed less than obvious when juxtaposed with recent scientific developments. In closing, mention is made of an alternative variation on Aquinas proposed by Le Poidevin, which introduces some positive modifications to the argument but is ultimately considered weak in comparison to other formulations. This comprehensive analysis sheds light on the complexities and limitations of traditional cosmological arguments when scrutinized through a modern scientific lens.