The Cosmological Argument takes several forms but is basically represented below. Cosmological Argument Things exist It is possible for those things not to exist Whatever has the possibility of non-existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist. Something cannot bring itself into existence because it would have had to exist to do that. There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence, because an infinite regression of causes has no original cause, which means there is no cause of existence. Since the universe exists, it must have a cause, therefore there must be an uncaused cause of all things.
Human beliefs are contingent true, because it could happen to be true and it could also have been false. Divine beliefs are necessary truth, by denying it, it will create a contradiction. Therefore, as logic dictates, my first proposition is if one believes in God, then no human action will be voluntary. However, noted that God is all-knowing, but it doesn’t mean God is all-controlling. 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.
The issue with the solving of this problem is in Spinoza’s definition of God. Spinoza defines God as “a being absolutely infinite-that is, a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality.” The issue with this definition can be found within the word essentiality. I take issue with this definition because I disagree with his definition of God. Nothing in existence is essential and therefore to posit the claim that God is essential is a direct contradiction. Spinoza’s method of proving one substance relies upon his definitions and reason.
The second was is efficient because, nothing brings its self into existence. The third is, possibility and necessity [!]. Aqunhias’ has two more ‘ways’ but for the purpose of this essay I won’t be focusing on them heavily. These ways have started philosophers to debate and question his arguments ultimately made the cosmological argument debatable. The cosmological argument is however not a valid argument in explaining the existence of god because the conclusions do not logically follow the premises.
When it comes to his proof for God’s existence, he begins with the idea of cause and effect. He believes that everyone in th... ... middle of paper ... ... God’s existence and removed other possible causes of existence. It is clear that this argument is not satisfying in proving God’s existence. His logic shows an abundance of flaws. His reasoning for the fact that he has always existed seems concrete at first, but it actually just gives more proof against his existence.
God's presence isn't coherently demonstrated, yet it is likely, given the premises. Considered without anyone else, the claim God exists is exceptionally implausible, says Swinburne. However, in light of the cosmological contention, it turns out to be more plausible, on the grounds that God's presence is the best clarification for why the universe exists. God is the real reason why orders and purpose of things that we find on this universe, according to design, viz. We can include the contention from religious experience and a contention from supernatural occurrences.
The intricacy of a simple time telling device has sparked controversy about the creation of the universe. In William Paley’s “The Analogical Teleological Argument” he argues that the universe must have been created by a universe maker, God, due to its complexity. However, David Hume, provides an empiricist objection by arguing that one cannot prove the existence of a universe maker due to lack of experience regarding the creation of a universe. Ultimately, I will argue that Paley’s argument by design is not sufficient for proving God 's existence because, as individuals, we cannot assume that the world works the way we wish it. Paley’s claims that the universe must have an intelligent maker due to the complexity of its design.
Doubt exists in the believer and the non-believer because it is beyond our reason to determine the truth of God's existence. St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Anselm would not agree that God is the unknown. They would however agree that reason couldn't comprehend God. Both would argue that we can say some things with certainty about God, using reason. On that knowledge, they can form their arguments for God's existence.
Since you cannot infinitely regress backwards, there must be a first unmoved mover. This is understood to be God. One of the arguments against this is: why does God have to be the first mover? The reason is that God is just the first being – logically there has to be a first. If there were no first mover then it would have been impossible to start motion.
If one were to consider both the options, God has a cause and God does not have a cause, the argument does not hold true and fails to provide any evidence either way. Firstly, if one were to consider that God does not have a cause, then premise 1 does not hold true. Due to the fact that, if God were an uncaused object then its uncaused existence would go against the claim made in premise 1; for every x, there is ... ... middle of paper ... ...ce the universe is finite, it must rely on some other form of entity to create it, due to the fact that self-causation is utterly impossible. As mentioned above self-causation falls to hold true because of the fact that for something to cause itself, it must have to have existed prior to itself to create itself. Thus, the universe must have been created by an entity, which is ultimately not contingent and can match the expected immense explanation of the universe.