Cosmological argument

=== ''In esse'' and ''in fieri'' ===

The difference between the arguments from causation ''[[Becoming (philosophy)|in fieri]]'' and ''[[Essence|in esse]]'' is a fairly important one. ''In fieri'' is generally translated as "becoming", while ''in esse'' is generally translated as "in essence". ''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; compare the [[watchmaker analogy]]. (It may require occasional maintenance, but that is beyond the scope of the first cause argument.)

''In esse'' (essence) 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a liquid receives its shape from the vessel in which it is contained; but were the pressure of the containing sides withdrawn, it would not retain its form for an instant."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''. New York: Longmans Green.</ref>

The philosopher [[Robert Koons]] has stated a new variant on the cosmological argument. He says that to deny causation is to deny all empirical ideas – for example, if we know our own hand, we know it because of the chain of causes including light being reflected upon one's eyes, stimulating the retina and sending a message through the optic nerve into your brain. He summarised the purpose of the argument as "that if you don't buy into theistic metaphysics, you're undermining empirical science. The two grew up together historically and are culturally and philosophically inter-dependent&nbsp;... If you say I just don't buy this causality principle – that's going to be a big big problem for empirical science." This ''in fieri'' version of the argument therefore does not intend to prove God, but only to disprove objections involving science, and the idea that contemporary knowledge disproves the cosmological argument.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://training.sbtexas.com/onlinetraining/new-proofs-for-gods-existence/325/|title=Online Training &#124; Southern Baptists of Texas Convention}}</ref>