Since the universe exists, it must have a cause, therefore there must be an uncaused cause of all things. This uncaused cause must be God. Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) had a version of the Cosmological Argument called the Argument from Motion. He stated that things in motion could not have brought themselves into motion but must be caused to move. There cannot be an infinite regression of movers.
Craig/Kalam’s Cosmological Argument One of the most argued topics throughout human history is whether or not God exists. It is argued frequently because there are several different reasonings and sub arguments in this main argument. People who believe God exists argue how God acts and whether there is one or several. People who do not believe God exists argue how the universe became into existence or if it has just always existed. In this paper, I will describe Craig's argument for the existence of God and defend Craig's argument.
That question is the one raised by absurdism. Being, how can we derive meaning when nothing that exists has meaning, nothing exists on purpose, and therefore human life is absurd. Spinoza’s substance monism directly confronts this question by asserting the claim that there is essentially meaning in life because we are all a part of one substance which is God. However, while this may seem like it directly refutes the absurdist’s claim that nothing in existence has meaning it does not. The issue with the solving of this problem is in Spinoza’s definition of God.
Final Paper- Yash Patel Professor- Dr. Witmer Cosmological Argument There are many arguments that try to prove the existence of a God: fine-tuning argument, the objection from the threat of Spinozism, the objection from the impossibility of a necessary creator, cosmological argument, etc. However, the one that I find both plausible and suited for us to give a good argument for either God himself or, at least, some kind of first cause or ultimate explainer. The cosmological argument claims that the existence of a world is sufficient evidence of the existence of a God who created the universe. In other words the cosmological argument provides its case with the argument that God is significant amount of evidence for universe’s existence. The argument is based around the claim that the existence of the universe is in need of a competent explanation.
Furthermore, proposition 16 demonstrates that God’s essence contains infinite things and infinite modes. By containing infinite things and infinite modes, by definition, there is nothing that could exist outside of Go... ... middle of paper ... ...rtes. By rejecting Descartes objection of the possibility of more than one substance, Spinoza’s is able to preserve his argument for substance monism, and thus, the impossibility of things being other than the way they are. In conclusion, in 1p33s2 of the Ethics, Spinoza argues against the traditional view that things could have been created by God in some other way or order when he states “All things depend on God’s power. So in order for things to be able to be different, God’s will would necessarily also have to be different.
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.
Unlike the cosmological and teleological arguments which all make some first appeal to what one can observe in nature, the ontological argument begins with a definition of God and deduces conclusions which follow from the definition. In one version of the ontological argument, St. Anselm of Canterbury attempted to prove the existence of a necessarily existing being, and since Anselm others have wrestled with his famous ontological argument for the existence of God. The version of the argument I wish to consider is this: It [God] can be conceived to be something such that we cannot conceive of it as not exis... ... middle of paper ... ...ce between the two absurdities is that one is more obviously absurd at first thought than the other. Nevertheless, both are absurd, and one should not be expected to dream up all the infinitely absurd objections that exist. How is one supposed to anticipate such absurdity?
Proof For the Existence of God From the diversity of men and creatures on this earth, there has always been one unifying link. At the root of humanity’s existence, lies the root of all things natural and infinite, a hint of something supreme and purposeful, something incomprehensible; a glimpse of what is real and what is possible. Inspired by wonder one can easily be surprised by the doubts presented as to the existence and identity of this driving force. The Law of Causality properly states, “Anything which begins to exist must have been brought into existence by something distinct from itself.” Therefore, only something outside of the world could have created the world. Logic and natural law can easily prove that this Being is an All-Powerful God through four different arguments: the Cosmological, Historical, Moral, and Teleological arguments.
The ontological argument states that by understanding the nature of God himself, we come to realize he exists. He explains this argument by first defining what God is. Anslem says that God is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived to exist, that it can not even be considered not to exist. In short, the fact that said being can not be considered not to exist, would thereby make it greater than any that could be considered not to exist. This would in all reality be the secret to God's omnipotence in Anlsem's eyes.
Ontological arguments are a priori, which show that God exists without appealing to a sense experience. These ontological arguments argue about what God is to where he is from. St. Anselm, the creator of the ontological argument, based his theory on that we cannot think of anything greater than God. Therefor God must exist, why you might ask? If the greatest thing that we can conceive does not exist than we can still conceive the greatest thing that does exist, and that would be God.