More handpicked essays just for you.
The strengths of the cosmological argument
Cosmological argument critically
Cosmological argument critically
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
beings)” (Evans and Manis, 2009, pg. 70). A lot of times people have statements as such but are unable to back them up. Evan and Manis are able to respond to every statement they gave. The first opposition is that the universe has always existed; they don’t make any references outside of that such as the age of the universe. The second opposition brings forth the cause of everything. If we feel that everything that exists has to have a cause, then God must have a cause for his existence. They respond to this by stating that God is not a contingent being, if he was then he would have a cause and by that then he would be God. Finally, God is self-existence therefore making his existence infinite and uncaused.
McCloskey goes on to show that the cosmological argument does not allow “us to postulate an all powerful, all perfect, uncaused cause” (pg. 64). He assumes that since there is evil throughout the world then the world is somewhat blemished. Evan and Manis bring to a close that a cosmological argument is limited in itself because it only shows that a necessary being caused the universe. The argument doesn’t go into a lot of depth; it only shows the knowledge of God while allowing others to look deeper to gain a better understanding of God. This shows that the theist doesn’t have to necessarily prove God’s existence but
…show more content…
McCloskey states that “to get the proof going, genuine indisputable examples of design and purpose are needed” (McCloskey, 1968, pg. 64). By making this statement it shows that he wants evidence that can’t be challenged. As I stated earlier he likes the word “proof” and once again he attempts to use it. What he is seeking is unreasonable. Can he present undisputable examples of atheism having true value? No, therefore his requests are shown to be unreasonable. Another reason it is unreasonable is because we cannot define
Thomas Aquinas, a leading scholar of the Middle Ages, argued that “Everything in the universe has a cause. Trace those causes back and there must have been a First Cause that triggered everything else. God is that First Cause.” This was known as his “First Cause” argument.
In the article The Cosmic Perspective by Neil deGrasse Tyson he examines a range of topics from human life coming from Mars to how our perspective of the universe relates to religion. In the year 2000, a new space show opened at the Hayden Planetarium called Passport to the Universe, which compared the size of people Milky Way and beyond. While a show like this might make someone feel minuscule and insignificant, Tyson says that seeing the size of the universe actually makes him feel more alive not less and gives him a sense of grandeur. I agree with his idea that looking at us as a people in comparison can actually give you a sense of grandeur. However, when I compare myself to the vastness of space, it puts events on Earth in perspective while showing how influential we can be as a people even if we are small.
begin with. This we call God, so we call God the prime mover i.e. the
First off, The Cosmological Argument was developed by St. Thomas Aquinas in 1274 through his work entitled Summa Theologica (otherwise known as Five Ways). Its purpose was to prove God’s existence through sensory perception. In Part One, Article Three of Prima Pars, Aquinas states that in order to debate, one must become involved in the opposing argument, then afterwards argue their view. In this case, one must look at both the argument for God’s existence (Theism) and for God’s non-existence (Atheism) in order to truly understand the argument that they are arguing for or against. The cosmological argument is divided into three parts, each containing varying sub-arguments:
The question of God’s existence has been debated through the history of man, with every philosopher from Socrates to Immanuel Kant weighing in on the debate. So great has this topic become that numerous proofs have been invented and utilized to prove or disprove God’s existence. Yet no answer still has been reached, leaving me to wonder if any answer at all is possible. So I will try in this paper to see if it is possible to philosophically prove God’s existence.
In his paper Mackie not only lays out his own case for atheism but he also rebuts any argument that might be contrary to his own.
... uses the lack of proof of Gods existence for God’s existence. This then essentially leads to a battle between science and religion on the idea of whether or not God can be proven to exist and whether that proof is essential to determine if science or religion has the right answer.
The Proof of the Existence of God There are many arguments that try to prove the existence of God. In this essay I will look at the ontological argument, the cosmological. argument, empirical arguments such as the avoidance of error and the argument from the design of the. There are many criticisms of each of these that would say the existence of God can’t be proven that are perhaps.
The cosmological argument is the existence of God, arguing that the possibility of each existing and the domain collected of such elements in this universe. The inquiry is that 'for what reason does anything exist? Why as opposed to nothing? In this paper, I will explain for what reason does everything need cause? Why is God thought to be the principal cause?
A wonderful description of the nature of God’s existence that includes the absolute possession of characteristics that have to be uniquely God was said, “First, God must exist necessarily, which means that God’s existence differs from ours by not being dependent on anything or anyone else, or such as to be taken from him or lost in any way. God has always existed, will always exist and could not do otherwise than to exist. Also, whatever attributes God possesses, he possesses necessarily” (Wood, J., 2010, p. 191).
... it cannot be explained scientifically, as this would imply the existence of antecedent determining conditions. Because there are no prior determining conditions, the cause of the universe must be personal and uncaused, for how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect? Moreover, the cause must transcend both matter and time to create matter and time. Finally, in order to create the universe ex nihilo, this cause must be enormously powerful, if not omnipotent. One is warranted in concluding that therefore, God exists.
The Main Strengths of the Cosmological Argument There are many strengths within the Cosmological Argument which have proven theories and ways to prove the existence of God. Many of these strengths have come from such scholars as; Copleston, Aquinas and Leibniz, all of which have put together major points to prove the existence of a non-contingent being. One of the main strengths of the Cosmological Argument is from Aquinas way I that was about motion. This would be a posteriori argument because you need to gather evidence from the world around you.
This theory is Aristotle’s belief that something can not come out of nothing. Aristotle says, “How will there be movement, if there is no actually existing cause?…The seeds must act on the earth and the semen on the menstrual blood”. What he is saying is that something must be set into motion by something else. There is always a cause to an effect. One relies on the other. Therefore, before origin there must have been an “immovable mover”, that being God.
On the other hand, what caused God? If everything didn’t exist, than what caused God to exist? Nothing created God, He has always existed There can only be one being that can be uncaused. If there were more than one uncaused being, then beings would have potential. They would be striving to be what the other uncaused being is. This counteracts what an uncaused being is. It’s impossible because it would make an uncaused cause no longer be a being that is pure act. The being or beings would potentially be striving to be more than it or the other is.
...roofs of God’s existence are basically the same in that they are all, essentially, examples of cause and effect. This cause and effect does not neccesarily prove there is a God but it does lead one to wonder what may be the highest cause, and for this there is no proof.