Arguing for the Cosmological Argument without cause?

[Chesterton_SJ]

Is it possible to argue a version of the cosmological argument without basing it on cause? I ask because by definition the cosmological argument implies an argument based on some being causing the world or universe. I am wondering if I make the argument for the existence of God based on all things in existence having a telos (as opposed to a cause) would this still be labled a cosmological argument, or rather would it simply be a teleological argument.

 

[Perplexity]

Is it possible to argue a version of the cosmological argument without basing it on cause? I ask because by definition the cosmological argument implies an argument based on some being causing the world or universe. I am wondering if I make the argument for the existence of God based on all things in existence having a telos (as opposed to a cause) would this still be labled a cosmological argument, or rather would it simply be a teleological argument.

Leibnizian arguments are classified as cosmological arguments, and they aren’t concerned with causation. They generally say God explains the universe, or whatever explanandum they’re concerned with.

 

[Shike]

Is it possible to argue a version of the cosmological argument without basing it on cause? I ask because by definition the cosmological argument implies an argument based on some being causing the world or universe. I am wondering if I make the argument for the existence of God based on all things in existence having a telos (as opposed to a cause) would this still be labled a cosmological argument, or rather would it simply be a teleological argument.

If you use the Aristotelian notion of cause then teleology (final causality) is one of his 4 causes.