Humans can never know for the certain why the universe was created or what caused it but, we can still create arguments and theories to best explain what might have created the universe. The cosmological argument is another idea to prove the existence of god. Many philosophers debate wheatear the cosmological argument is valid. The cosmological argument starts off quite simply: whatever exists must come from something else. Nothing is the source of its own existences, nothing is self-creating .
Thus, arguments one, two, four and five conclude that God exists because the world requires him as an explanation. Meanwhile, argument three concludes that God could not not exist. Yet, still some individuals insist that the proofs are wrong. The first proof, The Way of Motion, is about how things change in the world and how things are put into motion. Since you cannot infinitely regress backwards, there must be a first unmoved mover.
For the sake of argument in a metaphysical sense, what if there were more than just one rea... ... middle of paper ... ...onditions: Since God is all-knowing, the multiverse can exist within God’s omniscience. God is not all-controlling, this allows mankind to have free will. The multiverse exist though human choices. My initial proposal to the argument of free will and omniscient was relied on necessary true, and this coincided with Nelson Pike’s explanation. This eventually leads to a fatalistic view that concludes no human actions are voluntary if one is believing in God.
How can anyone rationally conclude that there is a God from the simple statement that a first cause is necessary for the existence of anything? A first cause does not prove God, it only assumes that there is a God, at best. Could one not put matter in the place of God in St. Aquinas’s argument and still assume there is a first efficient cause? The theory that matter “is”, is just as plausible as the theory that God “is”. Matter is closed and finite in extent, with no beginning nor end.
He disputes the existence of God based on a lack of undisputable evidence, but he provides no undisputable evidence to counter this existence. He dismisses the idea of a creator by theory of evolution. Although he may have a valid argument for evolution he still does not account for the start of the world. Everything must come from something. The cause cannot be unlimited, there was a cause that had to be free of all other causes, and this points us to creation.
Philosophers say this proves that it cannot have been just random chance. Design qua purpose looks at the evidence of design in terms of how all ... ... middle of paper ... ... to change your beliefs. I.e. it won't convince an atheist. However, the idea of the universe just being here, a brute fact, a product of blind chance and nothing more is a personally unsatisfactory one due to the extraordinary nature of the universe and so whist the Design Argument may not conclusively prove the existence of God it suggests that the existence of a Designer, who we know as God, is a more probable likelihood than not.
But, you cannot have an infinite number of causes. Therefore there must have been an uncaused causer, which causes everything to happen without itself being caused by anything else. Such an uncaused cause is what people understand by 'God'. This idea was revisited by William Lane Craig who developed the Kalam cosmological argument. He reinforced the contention that the universe must have had a creator by firstly proving that the universe if finite.
On that knowledge, they can form their arguments for God's existence. Both the Ontological argument and the cosmological argument assume Gods existence, because they both rely on the idea of God in order to base their premises. The Question of whether or not God can exist will never be answered during anyone's natural lifetime. Maybe it is a question that is not supposed to be answered.
To make such an affirmation about a being absolutely infinite and supremely perfect, is absurd; therefore, neither in the nature of God, nor externally to his nature, can a cause or reason be assigned which would annul his existence. Therefore, God necessarily exists. --The potentiality of non-existence is a negation of power, and contrariwise the potentiality of existence is a power, as is obvious. --In this last proof, I have purposely shown God's existence a posteriori, so that the proof might be more easily followed, not because, from the same premises, God's existence does not follow a priori. Imperfection, on the other hand, does annul it; therefore we cannot be more certain of the existence of anything, than of the existence of a being absolutely infinite or perfect --that is, of God.
As God could be something that is outside of the scope of science then belief in God cannot be seen as unreasonable. Works Cited 1. Sikkema, Arnold E. 2007. "Laws of Nature and God's Word for Creation'." Fideles 27-43.