The science of cosmology and astrophysics has flourished in the past century, and today we know a great deal about the universe, its beginning, and its evolutionary processes. Some of the claims scientists have been able to confirm about the universe and how it works are quite impressive. For instance, we know that the universe is 13.8 billion years old and that it is 28 billion light years in diameter. Moreover, we know this with a high degree of certainty and accuracy. We have learned a great deal about neighbouring galaxies and suns, acquiring a vast amount of information about the matter that composes the universe, how it is distributed, and how it was formulated. In addition, we have accumulated a great deal of evidence for the Big Bang Theory – such as an expanding universe, background radiation, the unification of matter, evolutionary processes of stellar formations, etc. – and this knowledge, coupled with our advances in physics, has opened a door through which we can begin to get a glimpse of how the universe began, how it evolved to its present state, and what we should expect in the next several billion years. Given the growth in our understanding of the universe, it is reasonable to question whether cosmological arguments for the existence of God, particularly those prior to the twentieth century, are still relevant today and whether they still have any cogency whatsoever.

In this essay, I examine Francisco Suárez's cosmological argument for the existence of God and offer a critical evaluation of the argument. While the primary concern of this essay is to expound and critically analyse Suárez's argument, I hope that some of his views and arguments might serve as an impetus for new ideas that might lead to innovative insights about the cosmological argument and its historical evolution, particularly changes from medieval to modern formulations of the argument. First, I analyse the basic and general structure of Suárez's argument, as compared to the other traditional arguments for the existence of God and as compared to the various types of cosmological arguments. Second, I examine in detail Suárez's argument and its logical structure, as well as proposed objections and rebuttals to the objections. Third, I situate Suárez's argument historically by drawing some comparisons with Aquinas's cosmological arguments. Moreover, I explore what contributions Suárez's argument can make, if any, to the revived and currently ongoing discussion on the cosmological argument. Finally, I conclude by answering how scientific discoveries of the twentieth century affect Suárez's argument.