...Let’s face it, our opinions are going to be biased. Some believe in God, some believe in a higher power, some do not believe at all. So the way that we interpret these articles are all going to be different. I for one do not believe in God, mostly because why would ‘the greatest being’ in all the world decide that war, famine, disease and death are good things to have for his creations. The Ontological argument was the lease convincing argument. God is not perfect, God makes mistakes. The Cosmological Argument was easy to read and did not make me laugh as I tried to pick through them. Paley’s Teleological argument was also believable, but it and the Cosmological argument are both similar. The first ontological (a word that relates to the branch of metaphysics that studies the nature of existence), argument for the existence of God was established by the Benedictine monk known as Anselm. Anselm defines God by saying God is that “which nothing greater can be conceived.” God is perfection and the greatest possible being. But it has a number of consequences. One of them is that it becomes impossible to demonstrate that God is not possible. How are you supposed to debunk him if he is perfect? God is said to have omnipotence, but can God create a round square? Can he defy logic?...
Words: 585 - Pages: 3
...Outline the cosmological argument for the existence of God (21 marks) The cosmological argument aims to prove the existence of God whilst also providing an explanation for the beginning of the universe, with different views coming from various scholars. It is an a posteriori argument, meaning we can draw conclusions from experiences based on what we see around us, although it is not a fact. Despite the separate interpretations, the cosmological argument revolves around a first cause which started the universe. This cause is what we come to know as God, and the scholars mainly focus on different ways of proving his existence by looking at the world around us. When looking at the argument, Thomas Aquinas is the driving force behind most of its foundations and ideas. His first way from five in his book ‘Summa Theologica’, he outlines the need for a first cause because of the motion we see in the world. Nothing inanimate can move itself, and requires another force in order for it to go from potentiality to actuality. But everything has to be moved by something else which would go on infinitely, so something must have been the first mover. This first mover is understood to be God, who set the world in motion when he created it. This mirrors Aristotle’s ideas about planetary motion, and Aquinas believed God continues to keep the world functioning and moving. Furthermore, Aquinas’ second way also represents the cosmological argument as the way of causation. When you look at everything...
Words: 619 - Pages: 3
...The cosmological argument (i) Examine the view that the cosmological argument provides an explanation for the world and is a trustworthy basis for belief in the existence of God. (21) The cosmological argument, also known as the first cause argument, is a classical argument for the existence of God. The word cosmological comes from the Greek for order and it is an inductive argument as the premises are true but the conclusion may not be, and it is also synthetic where the truth is determined by experience and needs to be proven. It is also a posteriori and also based on natural theology. The Cosmological argument finds its answer for the start of the universe through causes, meaning everything is caused by something, or everything is dependent on something else. The argument attempts to find proof for God’s existence stating that as something cannot come from nothing God must exist in order for anything and everything else to exist. The origins of the cosmological argument come from Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle. Plato 428-347 BC records one of the earliest versions of the Cosmological arguments in his book of ‘Laws’. Plato writes about the argument through an exchange between an Athenian and Clianis. The Athenian attempts to prove the existence of the gods by arguing that, of all the different types of motion, the motion “which can move itself” is “necessarily the earliest and mightiest of all changes”. It is clear from his argument that infinite regress...
Words: 1053 - Pages: 5
...ACCEPT OR REJECT THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS AS PROVIDING RATIONALLY CONVINCING ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. PHIL 3431: Introduction to Philosophy of Religion November 20th, 2012 The Cosmological Argument The cosmological argument is considered to be the relationship between the existence of the world or universe and the existence of a being that created this world or universe and maintains its existence. According to many studies, the cosmological argument comes in two forms: the modal cosmological arguments and the temporal kalam cosmological arguments. The modal cosmological argument The modal cosmological argument, also known as the argument from contingency, suggest that the universe existence requires an explanation. In other words, there must be a cause that can explain why the universe exists now. The modal cosmological argument places the universe as a contingent being. A contingent being is something that requires a cause of existence. On the contrary, the cosmological argument explains a second type of being: a necessary being. A necessary being is something that does not require an explanation or cause of its existence, a being that could not have failed to exist. In conclusion, the ultimate cause of everything that exist must then be a necessary being. The modal cosmological argument places this necessary being in God’s existence. The modal cosmological argument bases on the following premises: 1. If something exists, what it takes for that...
Words: 2119 - Pages: 9
...the Cosmological Argument The goal of the cosmological argument is to support the claim that God exists as the first cause of the universe. According to Nagel, the argument runs as following: (P1) Every event must have a cause. (P2) If every event must have a cause, event A must have a cause B, which in turn must have a cause C, and so on. (P3) There is no end to this backward progression of causes. (C1) This backward progression of causes will be an infinite series of event. (P4) An infinite series of events is unintelligible and absurd. (P5) The existence of the universe does not result from an unintelligible and absurd process. (P6) The existence of the universe does not result from an infinite series of events. (C2) The existence of the universe must have a first cause. (P7) This first cause is God. (C3) God is the initiator of all change in the universe. Now I will introduce Nagel’s objection to the cosmological argument. For the sake of argument, Nagel presupposes the cosmological argument’s premise P1 “every event must have a cause” as true. With that in mind, Nagel presents his objection, which I have paraphrased in two parts. Nagel argues in the first part of his objection that if every event must have a cause, God should also need one for his existence, since there must be something that initially caused God to exist. However, this would again begin the infinite backward progression of causes, since the existence of that which caused God’s existence must...
Words: 1564 - Pages: 7
...The Kalam Cosmological Argument The temporal, kalam cosmological argument, dates back to medieval Muslim philosophers such as al-Kindi and al-Ghazali. It has recently been restored to popularity by William Lane Craig. Like all cosmological arguments, the kalam cosmological argument is an argument from the existence of the world or universe to the existence of God. The existence of the universe, such arguments claim, stands in need of explanation. The only adequate explanation, the arguments suggest, is that it was created by God. What distinguishes the kalam cosmological argument from other forms of cosmological argument is that it rests on the idea that the universe has a beginning in time. Modal forms of the cosmological argument are consistent with the universe having an infinite past. According to the kalam cosmological argument, however, it is precisely because the universe is thought to have a beginning in time that its existence is thought to stand in need of explanation. This argument has the following logical structure: The Kalam Cosmological Argument (1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence. (2) The universe has a beginning of its existence. Therefore: (3) The universe has a cause of its existence. (4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God. Therefore: (5) God exists. The first premise of the argument is the claim that everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. In order...
Words: 451 - Pages: 2
...ontological and cosmological arguments The ontological and cosmological arguments Does God exists? Has been asking this question over and over, but there may not be an exact answer to this question. Over the time this topic has been disputing among the philosophers and the people who tried to answer it. . There are many questions and issues that are related to this question. Depending on the people if they are believers or not? Or what are the essences of a person religion? There is no specific answer to any of these questions and therefore one would ask. When people are asked about God existence, from their answers we can classify them in to two groups, the first group would be the believers whom answers will be yes based on the person’s believes. The second group would be the atheist who does not agree on God existence. However, whether a person is a believer or an atheist, there cannot be a significant prove that God exist or not. There two argument to the question of whether God exist or not. The Ontological Argument and the Cosmological Argument. The ontological argument is presented by St Anselm and the Cosmological Argument is presented by Saint Thomas Aquinas. In this essay I am going to explore both argument. The Ontological Argument The first argument I am going to explore is The Ontological Argument explained by St Anselm. In exploring St Anselm argument we can summarize it in the following characteristics. The first characteristic of Anselm ontological argument is that...
Words: 1076 - Pages: 5
...Explain how the existence of God may be proved by Cosmological arguments (30) There are many arguments that can be displayed to provide evidence for the existence of God. The cosmological argument, also known as the first cause argument, is a posteriori argument. This means that the evidence used to prove the argument can be observed by anyone, which makes the argument more accessible and user friendly. The argument is also an inductive argument, which means that it can have many possible conclusions; not necessarily God. This argument is a strong argument, which tries to deduce the existence of God through cause and effect. It’s based upon the principle that everything must have been caused by something in order to exist. The cosmological argument has long history, going back to the philosophers of Plato, Aristotle and Leibniz. All of these philosophers may have had different ideas about God, although they all agreed that the universe is not self-explanatory and must have had a sole cause in order for it to come into existence. Plato was an Ancient Greek Philosopher who was considered as the father of modern philosophy. In fact, one of the earliest forms of a cosmological argument was found in Plato’s writings: Timaeus and The Laws. In The Laws, we see the argument for the existence of God being proposed as the very fact that the universe exists and it also goes on to discuss the principles of change and motion. Plato is proposing the necessity of a ‘self moved’ mover, implying...
Words: 1328 - Pages: 6
...of the theistic arguments. He argues against the existence of God by attempting to refute the cosmological and teleological arguments; as well he endeavours to discredit a God based upon the presence of evil. In doing this, he extends the boundaries for arguing God, whilst opening the floor to debate free will and the apparent comfort of the atheistic belief system. However, through careful analysis of the arguments for God, and an insight into the mysterious free will that God has given man; we see that a theistic belief is logically more sound and preferred. McCloskey says that the proofs for the argument of God cannot definitively establish a case for the existence of God. Therefore, all those proofs for God cannot be used in the logical argument for a God. However, McCloskey didn’t recognize the three aspects when approaching the question: does God exist. Through these three studies, we are shown that though no one person can empirically prove the existence of God, He in fact still exists (Foreman, Lesson 18). The three aspects to approaching the question of God are: best explanations approach, cumulative case approach, and the minimalistic concept of God. The best explanations aspect refers to the existence of God as the best way of explaining the effects that we can empirically observe within our universe. The cumulative case view tells us that no one argument can get us to the existence of the God of Christianity. Finally, the minimalistic concept of God argues for a personal...
Words: 1875 - Pages: 8
...The Cosmological argument argues for the existence of God a posteriori based on the apparent order in the universe. For Aristotle, the existence of the universe needs an explanation, a cause, as it could not have come from nothing. Nothing comes from nothing so since there is something, there must have been some other thing that is its cause. Aristotle rules out an infinite progression of causes, so, that led to the conclusion that there must be a First Cause. Likewise with motion, there must have been a first cause; Aristotle calls this the ‘Prime Mover’. There is a God, says Aristotle -for how else does motion begin? Whilst this argument does generally offer some support for the existence of God, it does not prove his existence. Aquinas believed that, since the universe is God's creation, evidence of God's existence can be found in his creation using intellect and reason, as such a concept of God is beyond all direct human experience. Hence, he devised his 'Five Ways,' 5 a posteriori arguments for the existence of God, based on our empirical experience of the universe. The Cosmological argument rests on the first three of Aquinas' Five Ways. The first way is called the argument from motion or ‘change’. It is in this first way that Aquinas follows Aristotle’s ‘prime mover’ thesis. The first way (The 'Kalam' argument) follows as: • Everything in the world is moving or changing • Nothing can move or change by itself • There cannot be an infinite regress of things changing other...
Words: 949 - Pages: 4
... Kuykendall 5 May 3, 2015 McCloskey Response Paper “On Being an Atheist” Does God Exist? That is the question we face! For many years Theists and Atheist have debated this question for many years along with their central views and beliefs that we as human being rely on as it relates to Life and God. The Point of views and debates center around the Cosmological Argument, the Teleological argument (argument from Design) and the most debated argument as it relates to this topic called the Problem with evil? When questioning wither or not God Exist these traditional arguments play significant roles in investigating and proving or discrediting someone’s view or stance on this specific Philosophical belief. As you read McCloskey article “On Being an Atheist” he argues the Theist stance who believe in the Existence of God from the perspective view of an Atheist. McCloskey in writing this Article is not trying to discredit their belief in the Existence of God, but to raise questions, doubts and uncertainties concerning their arguments on which they stand on to prove their belief by ultimately concluding that the Theist arguments are not valid and should be disregarded as evidence to prove their belief in the existence of God. The problem with McCloskey argument against the argument of Theistic View is the Theist argument is not to literally prove their belief concretely on the existence of God, but there view is design to give us what is called “Best Explanation”. According to...
Words: 2421 - Pages: 10
...b) To what extent was Hume successful in his critique of the cosmological argument? [10]Hume makes some very important challenges to the Cosmological argument which some believe count decisively against it. One of the key areas he calls into question is the argument’s dependence upon what Leibniz termed the principle of sufficient reason. In this principle an adequate explanation must be a total explanation. The universe requires an explanation of itself as a whole. But many would say, as Russell later told Copleston: “Then I can only say that you’re looking for something which can’t be got, and which one ought not to expect to get.” If you have explained each individual element of a series any explanation of the series as a whole would seem to be superfluous, and besides he says that ‘the whole’ doesn’t really exist anyway – it is ‘an arbitrary act of mind’ that makes things into wholes. What we term the ‘whole universe’ in modern physics may be only a bubble in a larger reality that we have no way of grasping. Also if we are only entitled to talk about causes when we have had experience of them, then this argument would seem to be over-stretching itself in speculating upon what it cannot know. On the other hand, there is of course a problem with stopping at a certain point and saying that we should seek no further explanation, in that it is a basic presupposition of all scientific work. However, even though a principle of rationality is that we can find an explanation for...
Words: 2857 - Pages: 12
...Examine the cosmological argument for the existence of God. The cosmological argument is an a posteriori argument which intends to prove that there is an intelligent being that exists; the being is distinct from the universe, explains the existence of the universe, and is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent. The basic notion of cosmological arguments is that the world and everything in it is dependent on something other than itself for its existence. It explains that everything has a cause, that there must have been a first cause, and that this first cause was itself uncaused. Many philosophers have explored the cosmological argument, including Aquinas, in much depth, through his Five Ways in the Summa Theologica. Thomas Aquinas rejected the ontological argument of Anselm, saying that had it been convincing, the existence of God would be self-evident to everyone. He argued that the fact people deny God’s existence is proof enough that it is not in fact self evident. Aquinas believed from faith that God existed and he believed that the real world contained enough evidence for this; Aquinas wrote the Five Ways in order to prove his beliefs. Each ‘way’ of the Five Ways is an exercise of reason, not of faith; they are the classical exposition of natural theology. The first three of the five ways are based on the cosmological argument. The first way that Aquinas proposed to support the cosmological argument regarded the ‘unmoved mover’; he stated that...
Words: 1393 - Pages: 6
...McCloskey H.J. McCloskey attempted to contradict the arguments proving Gods existence used by theists in the article “On Being an Atheist”. Although there is no sufficient proof in the cosmological argument of their being a perfect creator, it does however provide evidence of a singular being. The evidence of an almighty creator is provided by the simple element of complex design. However, though this almighty creator allows the existence of evil in the world, He was not the one to create it, and, as such, has a purpose behind its existence. The existence of God can be logically concluded, contrary to McCloskey’s beliefs, using the philosophical inquiry. McCloskey refers to the cosmological, teleological, and design arguments throughout his article, and discuss how theists use them to prove the existence of God. McCloskey may, perhaps, believe that these arguments are unsuccessful because his different beliefs allow his approach to be different. Contrary to proof, these aspects of cosmological, teleological, and design are more accurately represented when used as evidence or as simply arguments. Dr. Mark Foreman describes proof, in his presentation of “Approaching the Questions of God’s Existence”, as something that involves a characteristic of complete certainty. As McCloskey refers to the many arguments as “proof” he implies that the arguments are thought to be facts of absolute truth. If this were true, than these arguments would have to be accepted and believed by all individuals...
Words: 1717 - Pages: 7
...Cosmological Argument Many philosophers have provided their arguments for the existence of God. Their arguments are a priori or a posteriori. A posteriori is based on experience of how the world is. In which the Cosmological view of William L. Rowe comes from. This paper will show how Rowe took the cosmological argument and its principle of sufficient reason and failed to make it an established argument of the existence of God. Cosmological Argument has been taking by many and divided into parts of their argument. Rowe was influenced by the Philosophers Saint Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century and Samuel Clarke in the eighteenth century. All men have similar view points, also are slightly different, and can be translated into one viewpoint of causal relationship. These viewpoints of their arguments are listed as follows: (1) The world is made up of either dependent beings, or independent beings. (2) Not every being can be a dependent being. (3) Therefore, there exists a self-existent being, and that being is God. In Rowe’s argument he reflects on the thought of principle of sufficient reason and it states that there must be an explanation of the existence of any and every being, and of any positive fact whatever. For example, this is the explanation for my existence and every feature of my life. Principle of sufficient reason give Anselm’s three cases: explained by another, explained by nothing, and explained by itself holds Anselm’s principles...
Words: 972 - Pages: 4
