Early elements of the Cosmological Argument were developed by the world renowned philosophers Plato and Aristotle between the years 400 and 200 BC (Boeree). Medieval philosopher Saint Thomas Aquinas expanded upon their ideas in the late 13th Century when he wrote, “The Five Ways.” Since then the Cosmological Argument has become one of the most widely accepted and criticized arguments for the existence of God. My objective in this paper is to explain why the Cosmological Argument is a reasonable argument for the existence of God, the importance of understanding that it is an inductive a posteriori argument, and defend my position against common opposing arguments.
To begin, as living human beings on the planet earth we can safely conclude that most everything in existence has a cause. We observe that there is a cause behind the flat tire we receive while driving to school. There is a cause behind why we earned a failing grade in Philosophy. There is a cause behind why our bodies feel pain. And there is even a cause for why moss grows heaviest on the North side of trees. Saint Thomas Aquinas argues that everything in existence has a cause and therefore all things are contingent and finite. That is to say, “Everything in nature can both exist and not exist, given that we find things in nature to come into and pass out of existence” (Ruckaber, 2009). Modern philosophers understand this assertion by Saint Thomas to mean that all things in nature are contingent on a first cause in order to exist. Saint Thomas argues that this first cause must be God because before the Universe came into existence there had to have been a necessary or non-contingent being to serve as first cause. To help clarify the relationship b...
... middle of paper ...
...things finite and contingent must have a cause; next, I argued that no contingent thing can be the cause of itself; and finally I added that a chain of causes cannot be infinite.
In conclusion, there must have been a necessary being which served as the first cause of the Universe. This necessary being can be referred to as God. I make this conclusion due to my understanding of the evidence given above and the fact that there are no reasonable arguments that beyond reasonable doubt can prove otherwise. In addition, it is my finding that the roots of the Cosmological Argument are firmly cemented in a posteriori observation (induction), as opposed to purely rational thought which is deductive. Knowing how this argument is classified is imperative because it is essential to understanding the structure of the argument and how it arrives at its conclusion.
... God alone remains; and, given the truth of the principle that whatever exists has a cause, it follows, Descartes declares, that God exists we must of necessity conclude from the fact alone that I exist, or that the idea of a supremely perfect – that is of God – is in me, that the proof of God’s existence is grounded in the highest evidence” Descartes concludes that God must be the cause of him, and that God innately implanted the idea of infinite perfection in him.
St. Anselm and St. Thomas Aquinas were considered as some of the best in their period to represent philosophy. St. Anselm’s argument is known as the ontological argument; it revolves entirely around his statement, “God is that, than which no greater can be conceived” (The Great Conversation, Norman Melchert 260). St. Thomas Aquinas’ argument is known as the cosmological argument; it connects the effects of events to the cause for why they happened. Anselm’s ontological proof and Aquinas’ cosmological proof both argued for God’s existence, differed in the way they argued God’s existence, and had varying degrees of success using these proofs.
After exhibiting faulty methods of argument and frequent logical fallacies, the teleological argument fails as a well-crafted argument. The content of this argument refuses to account for evolutionary theory, and fails to solve the burden of proof in showing how everything is designed deliberately. Even the criterion for god, which William Paley outlines, is faulty and unachievable by the current state of reality. Although the argument proves that an amalgamation of forces formed the universe, to consider them conscious is begging the question. Ultimately, the teleological argument is an inadequate and dated explanation for the creation of the universe.
Typically, cosmological arguments occur in two different phases. The first phase’s purpose is to provide the premise that there is a ‘first cause’ or an independent being that caused the creation of our universe, while the second phase’s purpose is to argue that this being has godlike features like omnipotence and immanence. To justify the claims in these phases, the Cosmological Argument takes into consideration the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR), which is the principle that there is an explanation for the existence of every single thing (referred to as PSRa), and for every positive fact (referred to as PSRb). This principle is a key element of the cosmological argument as it provides rationale to the premises of the argument with what appears to be obvious facts.
“But the series of efficient causes cannot possibly go back to infinity” (Aquinas, 45). If it was possible to theoretically “get rid of” a cause, then all of its effects would be gone as well. If the particular seed I talked about earlier was destroyed, then the particular tree would not exist. To say there was no first cause would mean that there were no effects at all. This is contradictory to what we can clearly observe, so there must have been a first cause. Aquinas concludes that just as it can be observed that no object exists without a cause, which ca...
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.
Aquinas has several premises that all his arguments rely on. The starting point is that dependent beings exist. Since they exist, they (including their essence or characteristics) must have a cause. It
Three of St. Thomas’s arguments - one, two, and five - are established on the observation of the natural world. Arguments three and four are established on rational speculation. All of the arguments, except for the third, theorize that only the existence of God can provide a sufficient explanation for the refutes presented. In argument three, he concludes that God must necessarily exist for his own sake. 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 controversial topic involving the existence of God has been the pinnacle of endless discourse surrounding the concept of religion in the field of philosophy. However, two arguments proclaim themselves to be the “better” way of justifying the existence of God: The Cosmological Argument and the Mystical Argument. While both arguments attempt to enforce strict modus operandi of solidified reasoning, neither prove to be a better way of explaining the existence of God. The downfall of both these arguments rests on commitment of fallacies and lack of sufficient evidence, as a result sabotaging their validity in the field of philosophy and faith.
To begin, proof of God’s existence is seen in the group of cosmological arguments. The cosmological arguments are a set of arguments that demonstrate the existence of a sufficient reason or first cause of the existence of the cosmos, or the universe as a whole. There are three different types of cosmological arguments, the Kalam, Thomist and and Leibnizian cosmological arguments. Proponents of the cosmological argument include Plato, Aristotle, and John Locke. Contemporary defenders include William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne.
In his Meditations, Rene Descartes attempts to uncover certain truths about existence. In his Third Meditation, he establishes his "special causal principle" (SCP). Descartes uses this principle to explore the origin of ideas, and to prove the existence of God. I agree that there is much logic to be found in the SCP, but I disagree with Descartes method of proving God's existence, and in this essay I will explain why. I will begin by explaining the SCP, and will then demonstrate how Descartes applies this principle to prove that God exists. I will then present my critique of the SCP, and expose the flaws in both of Descartes proofs with regards to the principle. A conclusion will then follow.
In this universe everything has a cause of its existence, so this universe might have a cause, but no is sure who created, so we as humans think that God created this universe, but unless if you’re an atheist who doesn’t believe in God. The reason time exist because of this universe, which mean that time has a cause and time didn’t exist before if the universe wasn’t existed. At the end of the day, as opposed to surmise that God exists, we may think there is only an interminable relapse of causes. Something has dependably existed. 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. Each work a similar way, “The presence of God is the best clarification for these wonders”. When we set up every one of these contentions together, he asserts, it turns out to be more likely that God exists than that God doesn't. the premises are conceivable, and the inductions are natural. So, in spite of the fact that it isn't an explanatory
Dr. William Lane Craig supports the idea of existence of God. He gives six major arguments, in order to defend his position. The first argument is quite fare, Craig says that God is the best reason of existence of everything. He gives the idea, that the debates between all the people, cannot reach the compromise, because the best explanation of the reasons of existence of everything is God, and nothing can be explained without taking Him into consideration. The second argument of Craig is from a cosmological point of view: he says that the existence of the universe is the best proof of the existence of God. Because, the process of the creation of the universe is so ideally harmonious, that it seems impossible to appear accidentally. The third argument is about the fine tuning of the universe. The universe is designed in such a way that people always have aim of life, and the life of people and the nature are interconnected. The fourth argument of Dr. Craig is about the morality: God is the best explanation of the existence of the morality and moral values in people’s lives. The...
... 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.
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.