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 . The cosmological argument states at some point, the cause and effect sequence must have a beginning. This unexpected phenomenal being is god. According to the argument, god is the initial start of the universe as we know it. Though nothing is self-creating cosmological believers say god is the only being the is self –created. Aquinas, an Italian philosopher, defended the argument and developed the five philosophical proofs for the existence of god knows as, the “Five Ways”.. In each “way” he describes his proof how god fills in the blanks of the unexplainable. The first way simply states that, things in motion must be put in motion by something. 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.
William Paley’s teleological argument (also known as the argument from design) is an attempt to prove the existence of god. This argument succeeds in proving that while existence was created by an aggregation of forces, to define these forces, as a conscious, rational, and ultimately godlike is dubious. Although the conclusions are valid, the argument makes several logical errors. The teleological argument relies on inductive reasoning, rendering the argument itself valid, but unsound. The argument fails to apply its own line of reasoning to itself, resulting in infinite regression. Beyond the scope of its logical flaws, the arguments content lacks accurate comparisons. The argument hinges on a watch metaphor, and as will be shown, this metaphor will prove inaccurate in explaining the creation of the universe.
The Key Ideas of the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God A) The cosmological argument is to prove the existence of god. In this type of argument we are looking at cause and not design. This type of argument is an aposteriori argument because it is based upon experience. Thomas Aquinas puts the key ideas into 3 ways.
ABSTRACT: The Third Way is the most interesting and insightful of Aquinas' five arguments for the existence of God, even though it is invalid and has some false premises. With the help of a somewhat weak modal logic, however, the Third Way can be transformed into a argument which is certainly valid and plausibly sound. Much of what Aquinas asserted in the Third Way is possibly true even if it is not actually true. Instead of assuming, for example, that things which are contingent fail to exist at some time, we need only assume that contingent things possibly fail to exist at some time. Likewise, we can replace the assumption that if all things fail to exist at some time then there is a time when nothing exists, with the corresponding assumption that if all things possibly fail to exist at some time then possibly there is a time when nothing exists. These and other similar replacements suffice to produce a cogent cosmological argument.
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.
Throughout history there has always been discussions and theories as to how the universe came to be. Where did it come from? How did it happen? Was it through God that the universe was made? These philosophies have been discussed and rejected and new theories have been created. I will discuss three theories from our studies, Kalam’s Cosmological Argument, Aquinas’s Design Argument, and Paley’s Design Argument. In this article, I will discuss the arguments and what these arguments state as their belief. A common belief from these three theories is that the universe is not infinite, meaning that the universe was created and has a beginning date. Each believe that there was a God, deity, or master creator that created the universe for a reason. They also believe that
Reichenbach, B. 2013. Cosmological Argument, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2013 Edition). [Online] Available: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/cosmological-argument / [2014, January 11].
McCloskey starts with disputing the Cosmological argument. McCloskey states, "The mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in the existence of such a being" (McCloskey, 1968). Evans and Manis argue that for everything to exist there had to be a creator that created them. "Ultimately, the explanation of any contingent beings existence will be incomplete unless it culmi...
The Argument for the Existence of God It is an undisputed fact that some people claim to have experienced God. It is these religious experiences that have been used by philosophers to argue for the existence of God. The main way of expressing the argument from religious experience is as follows: P1 Someone experiences an entity C1 The entity exists P2 Someone has experienced God C2 God exists Those who champion the argument seek to differentiate ordinary experiences and religious experiences. The supporters of this argument argue that there are several key differences between the two types of experience: that religious experiences are completely different from what is normal and usual; that it is not usual to be able to describe a religious experience; religious experience cannot usually be checked (i.e. someone else cannot check to see whether it has happened or not); and it gives insight into the unseen.
The variegated landscape of theories of truth and systems of logic, wherein each is cogently argued while yet inconclusive, is substantially accounted for by the fact that we just don’t know enough yet about the nature of our universe, let us call it R, to be able to settle on one or the other of these theories and systems as adequate for the representation and processing of our knowledge about R. In this paper firstly we discuss this thesis, that it is primarily our ignorance of R, and not any failure to rigorously construct our theories and systems, that is a fundamental cause of the inadequacies of these theories and systems. Secondly we will delineate a scientific perspective, Explorationism, which, if the thesis first considered is correct, is deserving of advocacy. Finally, we exemplify this perspective by exhibiting a logic, Evidence Logic (EL), which incorporates a broadened concept of negation which (1) provides for the representation and processing of both confirmatory and refutatory evidential knowledge including the possibility of a generous range of conflicting evidence while yet (2) enforces noncontradiction.