University Essay: God, Freedom, and Evil: Philosophical Debate

This essay delves into the philosophical arguments surrounding God, freedom, and evil, focusing on Rebeca Goldstein's cosmological argument from her novel "36 Arguments for the Existence of God." The essay compares Goldstein's ideas with those of St. Thomas Aquinas, highlighting similarities and differences within the cosmological framework. Both Goldstein and Aquinas explore the concept of a primary cause for the universe, acknowledging the principle of "ex nihilo nihil fit." However, the essay points out key distinctions, such as Aquinas's view of God as a necessary being versus Goldstein's less defined stance, and the contradiction in Goldstein's argument regarding the uncaused cause. The essay concludes by critiquing Goldstein's argument, suggesting it fails to fully establish God as a concept due to internal inconsistencies and a lack of clarity on the nature of causation.

Running head: GOD, FREEDOM AND EVIL
God, Freedom and Evil
Student’s Name
University
Author’s Note

1
GOD, FREEDOM AND EVIL
Philosophy of religion has been a prominent field of study since ancient times. It deals
with several concepts and notions pertaining to religion such as the concept and existence of
God, religious beliefs, arguments, norms and adherences. (Hewitt, Ed. 2016)
The present essay deals with the arguments presented by Rebeca Goldstein in her novel
36 Arguments for the Existence of God: A Work of Fiction. In the present novel, Goldstein tries
to establish a cosmological argument structure to establish the existence of God. In this context,
Goldstein’s account can be compared with that of St. Thomas Aquinas, who is regarded as the
pioneer of the discourse of cosmological argument. Therefore, the aim of the essay is to identify
the similarities and dissimilarities between the accounts of Goldstein and Aquinas.
Cosmological argument can be defined as the philosophical standpoint that tries to
establish the existence of God as the primary cause of the universe. Philosophers like
Plato, Aristotle, Maimonides, Aquinas, Descartes and Leibnitz have contributed to the field,
where Thomistic argument of Aquinas, Leibnitz’s theory of sufficient reason and kalam
argument are the most popular versions of the argument (Copan & Craig, (Eds.) 2017).
In the Thomistic version of cosmological argument, named after the celebrated medieval
theologist Thomas Aquinas, it is argued that:
1. Everything that exists in the world are contingent in nature, i.e. they are created and will
cease to exist over time.
2. Nothing cannot be the cause of themselves.
3. Therefore, there must be a root cause for all things contingent
4. The root cause must be non-contingent or necessary being, or it will be subject to the
fallacy of regress.

2
GOD, FREEDOM AND EVIL
5. The universe cannot be the root cause of the contingent beings, for the universe itself is
contingent.
6. Necessary being exists for the sake of contingent beings.
7. Therefore, God exists (Clack & Clack, 2019).
Goldstein’s argument follows a similar route to that of Aquinas’s. The arguments can
both be considered as cosmological arguments, where they try to establish the existence of
God as the primary cause of the universe. The similarities between these two arguments are
that they both consider the theory “ex nihilo nihil fit” meaning, nothing comes out of nothing
(Loke, 2017). Therefore, they accept that everything that is created presupposes a cause.
Further, they also agree that nothing can be self-caused, i.e. a creation presupposes another
being to be created.
However, there are some fundamental differences between these two theories. Aquinas’s
theory considers God as a necessary being, whereas Goldstein does not clarify whether God
is contingent or necessary. Besides, Aquinas described God as a metaphysically necessary
being, while Goldstein propounds that God is a necessary as it is an external cause.
The major fault of Goldstein’s theory is that it does not clarify whether God is an
uncaused cause, and if not, what causes God. Goldstein, in her argument clearly states that
nothing can be the cause of itself. Therefore, God cannot be the cause of Himself. And if
there is another necessary being that causes God, He becomes contingent and thus will not be
considered as the root cause. Clearly, the argument involves major contradiction within itself.
Moreover, Goldstein’s argument fails to explain the concept of cause in this context.
Therefore, it can be said that Goldstein’s argument, although following the cosmological
structure, fails to establish God as a concept.

3
GOD, FREEDOM AND EVIL
References
Clack, B., & Clack, B. R. (2019). The philosophy of religion: A critical introduction. John Wiley
& Sons.
Copan, P., & Craig, W. L. (Eds.). (2017). The Kalam Cosmological Argument, Volume 1:
Philosophical Arguments for the Finitude of the Past. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
Hewitt Jr, H. (Ed.). (2016). Problems in the Philosophy of Religion: critical studies of the work
of John Hick. Springer.
Loke, A. T. E. (2017). Formulating a New Cosmological Argument. In God and Ultimate
Origins (pp. 85-107). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.