Free Essay

Cosmological Arugment

In: Philosophy and Psychology

Submitted By lrosson
Words 972
Pages 4
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 as false. For Anselm’s theory of “explained by nothing” violates the principle of sufficient reason and as a result is left out of premise one. Dependent or self-existent beings are the only two possible types of beings left. If we hold principle of sufficient reason to be true, then premise one is not up for argument, because only one of the two types of beings need to exists in order to follow as a true statement. Now let’s look into the second premise in which is stated that everything cannot be a dependent being. Rows goes into explaining why the principle of sufficient reason is true along with premise two also be to true. Rowe states that there has only been an infinite series of dependent beings and none of the self- existing beings. In this theory every being has an explanation of its existent because of the being before it and that in which caused its existence. Suppose one would say what cause the series to start in the first place. In the principle of sufficient reason states that doesn’t need for an explanation because it’s made up of all dependent beings, and dependent beings does not need to be explained. “It won’t do to say A’s have always been a producing of other A’s we can’t explain why there have always been A’s by saying that there have always been A’s. (Rowe 51) In which a self-existing being comes into play for the start of the series, and premise two is a true statement. For this to be true is simply because of premise one showing that there are only two beings a self- existing and dependent, and not everything can be a dependent being, therefor there must be an a self-existing being.
So far we follow the Cosmological Argument to be a true statement that proves the existence of a self-being which is God. But yet if we look into this a little deeper into Rowe’s ground for his argument which is the Principle of Sufficient reason we can see some fault. The only way the two premises can both be true, is if the Principle of Sufficient Reason must be true. If we look into Rowe’s suggestions of the reason to accept the trust of principle of sufficient reason we find first, “some have held the principles of sufficient reason is (or can be) known intuitively to be true” (Rowe 55) As we know for three plus three to equal six is true, the person for principles of sufficient reason say that the same is true about it. If one understands the principle of sufficient reason then it understands the truth about itself and it must be true. While some look to the principle of sufficient reason to be true others do not do so and thus comes a faulty way to prove the existence of God. For the ones who know three plus three equals does and must equal six, are not always for the principle of sufficient reason and “some even claim that the principle is false” (Rowe 55). Thus I believe that there are things and positive facts that do not need explanation.
The second of which Principles of sufficient reason is defended is by “claiming that although it is not known to be true, it is, nevertheless, a presupposition of reason, a basic assumption that rational people make” (Rowe 55). A person for principle of sufficient reason says that all of us already think that principle of sufficient reason is true. The problem with this is that even if we do believe that principle of sufficient reason is true, us believing in it does not make it true. I believe in one thing and another person might believe in something completely different. Holding ones belief in some subject does not make it true nor does it make it false.
In conclusion if one wants to hold the Cosmological Argument to prove the existence of God, then the proof of the principle of sufficient reason needs to have more evidence. The principles of sufficient reason are what make up the premises of Cosmological Argument in which have no evidence of being true. Therefore one cannot use the Cosmological Argument to prove the existence of God, until the principle of sufficient reason has more evidence to back its statements.

Similar Documents

Free Essay

Cosmological Argument

...A) Outline the cosmological argument for the existence of God “ A may be explained by B, and B by C, but in the end there will be some one object on whom all other objects depend” Richard Swinburne. The cosmological argument is an a posteriori argument which therefore basis it’s conclusions on observations and experience; this is difficult to challenge. Over many years, different scholars have added their opinions to Aristotle and Plato’s contributions, making that argument stronger. The most famous version of the cosmological is associated with the Christian apologist Thomas Aquinas. In his Summa theological he sets out to demonstrate that the universe requires an explanation and this explanation demands a necessary and non-contingent being, God. This ides is key at the heart of all cosmological arguments. “The series must start with something, since nothing can come from nothing” Metaphysics. Plato and Aristotle postulated the need for a craftsman for their arguments with the fact of motion, which, they argued, needs a prior agency to motivate it. This mover would, itself, have no further mover, because it would be a primes mover, which is a self-actualising, necessary being. Neither Aristotle nor Plato understood how the universe could exist without such a mover. Aquinas further developed this idea in his first and second way. Aquinas’ first way states that all things are in motion (a state of change: for Aquinas, “motion is the reduction of something from...

Words: 341 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Cosmological Argument

...What is the "Cosmological Argument" for God's existence?  Be sure to make the premises and conclusion clear.  Discuss what you take to be the strongest objection to this argument, and explain why you think it succeeds or fails. The cosmological argument for God’s existence differs from both the scriptural and ontological arguments in the way in which humans created it. Rather than looking at logical arguments or religious texts, the cosmological argument was derived because of humanity’s ability to project their need for cause onto the world. The cosmological argument is centered on the way in which we, humans in general, perceive there to be a need for a God due to the existence of the world around us. The cosmological argument goes back to ancient times when philosophers such as Aristotle wrote about it in several of his books. Aristotle and others argued that everything has a cause and every action has a reason behind it. This cause and action design sets up the principal aspect of the cosmological argument. If everything has a cause then we could trace back every action to the cause forming a chain of effects. And logically if we follow this chain of events back farther and farther we can determine that an infinite amount of steps backward would be impossible. And if this is the case then a single cause must be at the very start of the chain. This has been referred to as the first cause or the prime mover, or in other words a proof of an existence of God. To provide......

Words: 563 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Cosmological Argument

...The Cosmological Argument The Second Way: The Argument from Causation Aquinas claims that if we look around the world, we will see that things are caused to come into existence by other things. Children are caused to come into existence by their parents, who are in turn caused to some into existence by their parents, etc. We never observe anything causing itself, for this, Aquinas argues, would be absurd. However, the series of causes cannot go back infinitely. If you do not have a first cause, then there cannot be any intermediate causes, or a last. So there must be an uncaused first cause--and this we call God.     The Third Way: The Argument From Contingency Contingent vs. Necessary: Before we dive into Aquinas' Third Way, it will help to get a grasp on the difference between contingent things and necessary things. A contingent thing is one that either in fact exists, but might not have, or one that does not in fact exist, but might have. For example, Alumni Hall exists, but it might not have (we can imagine that they just never built it); so Alumni Hall is a contingent thing. Unicorns, on the other hand, do not in fact exist, but it seems possible that they might have; so unicorns are contingent things. There are lots of contingent things: you, me, your parents, my parents, etc. In contrast, a necessary thing is one that in fact exists, but is also something that could not have failed to exist. In other words, it is logically impossible that a necessary being......

Words: 545 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Cosmological Argument

...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......

Words: 1393 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay

Regarding the Cosmological Argument

...Regarding 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......

Words: 1564 - Pages: 7

Premium Essay

The Cosmological Aargument

...The Cosmological Argument The Cosmological argument infers that the existence of the universe is due to the existence of God. Plato bought about one of the oldest arguments between 428-327 BCE. Plato believed that there is a self moving principle from which all change and motion originated. This principle is the core which is responsible for the world. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century developed Plato’s views; however this development was with a theistic principle. The first three of the five ways produced was about the cosmological argument. Aquinas believed in the god of classical theism. The cosmological argument is a probability argument because it’s an a posteriori argument which takes its principles from an observation of the world. Its premises are drawn from experience and reach an inductive conclusion but are synthetic. Aquinas was a famous 13th century philosopher who came up with one of the most famous appliable cosmological arguments. These arguments were the first 3 of the 5 ways as mentioned above in the ‘Summa Theologica’. Aquinas’ first way referred to motion. Aquinas said “something’s are in motion. Now whatever is moved is moved by another…. Therefore it is necessary at a first mover…. Everyone understands to be God”. Aquinas further explained this as the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. For example, fire which is actually hot, changes wood, which is potentially hot, to the state of actually being hot and vice versa and it must be......

Words: 1051 - Pages: 5

Free Essay

The Cosmological Argument

...The cosmological argument The word “cosmos” means universe. The cosmological argument argues the existence of a first cause, God, from a posteriori and priori premise. It argues that the universe is contingent and therefore requires a cause, as nothing is the cause of itself. This is known as redicto- ad- absurdum. The argument is backed up by the five ways put forward by the 12th century theologian and philosopher, St Thomas Aquinas. In the 12th century, St Thomas Aquinas put forward 5 ways to prove the existence of God in his book “Summa Theologica”. Aquinas’s five ways to prove the existence of God are based on the work of Greek philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, whose work was later translated in Arabic, by Muslim philosophers Al- Kindi and Al- Ghazali, and then translated into Latin. I will be examining three of Aquinas’ ways, uncaused cause, unmoved mover and necessary being. As well as examining these three ways to prove the existence of God, I will be looking at their supporters and critics. Aquinas’ 1st way to prove the existence of God was the uncaused cause also known as the first cause. Aquinas considers the world in terms of “cause and effect” which means that without a cause there is no effect. Everything in the universe has a cause. Human beings have a cause (their parents) too. Aquinas argued that we could follow the chain of “cause and effect” all the way back, but there cannot be an infinite chain. There must be an uncaused cause, which causes......

Words: 1140 - Pages: 5

Free Essay

Cosmological Argument

... There have been many arguments formed by philosophers over the most basic question every human holds: is there a God? Cosmological arguments are arguably the most common in attempting to prove the existence of God. One of the most famous is the sufficent cause argument made famous by Saint Bonaventure. It simply states that nothing in the world is without cause. The belief being that God was the ultimate first cause of the universe, it didnt just come to be out of nothing. Bonaventure reasoned that their cannot be an infinite amount of causes streching back forever, therefore the first cause is God. Another cosmological argument was presented by the philosopher Gottfried Leibniz, the sufficent reason argument. Simply put, everything must have a reason for exsistence. For example, I was born because my parents concieved me and my mother gave birth to me. I need food, water and oxygen to continue exsisting. I do not hold in myself the reason for my own exsistence. Therefore there cannot be an infinite number of explanations for exsistence, if this were true Leibniz argued, there would be no reason for anything to exsist. Therefore something must exsist that holds its own reason for exsistence within itself, as well as the reason for everything elses exsistence. This thing is God. The philosopher Thomas Nagel held objections to all of the cosmological arguments. His objection had two parts; first is simply that if everything requires a cause God also requires a cause......

Words: 282 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

The Ontological and Cosmological Arguments

...The 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......

Words: 1076 - Pages: 5

Free Essay

Cosmological Cmstant

...------------------------------------------------- What is a Cosmological Constant? Einstein first proposed the cosmological constant (not to be confused with the Hubble Constant) usually symbolized by the greek letter "lambda" (), as a mathematical fix to the theory of general relativity. In its simplest form, general relativity predicted that the universe must either expand or contract. Einstein thought the universe was static, so he added this new term to stop the expansion. Friedmann, a Russian mathematician, realized that this was an unstable fix, like balancing a pencil on its point, and proposed an expanding universe model, now called the Big Bang theory. When Hubble's study of nearby galaxies showed that the universe was in fact expanding, Einstein regretted modifying his elegant theory and viewed the cosmological constant term as his "greatest mistake". Many cosmologists advocate reviving the cosmological constant term on theoretical grounds. Modern field theory associates this term with the energy density of the vacuum. For this energy density to be comparable to other forms of matter in the universe, it would require new physics: the addition of a cosmological constant term has profound implications for particle physics and our understanding of the fundamental forces of nature. The main attraction of the cosmological constant term is that it significantly improves the agreement between theory and observation. The most spectacular example of this is the recent......

Words: 554 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

Explain Aquinas' Cosmological Argument

...Explain Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument The basis of the cosmological argument is that the universe cannot account for its own existence. There must be a reason, the argument says, for the existence of the universe and the reason has to be something which is not part of the physical world of time and space. The cosmological argument was used by Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) in his five ways, which were ways of demonstrating the existence of God through inductive argument based on observation and evidence. In Aquinas’ view, knowledge of God could be reached in two ways; one through revelation for example, through the words of the Bible and the other is through our own human reason. Aquinas thought that if we applied reason to the evidence that we see around us then we would be able to reach valuable truths. To show that God exists, Aquinas had presented it through five ways because he was convinced that although the existence of God was not self-evident, it could be demonstrated with logical thought. He wrote about the five ways in his book Summa Theologica. Of Aquinas’ five ways, the first three are different alternatives of the cosmological argument. His version of the argument was based on two assumptions: the universe exists and there must be a reason why. This was used as a starting point to explain the fact that there must be an explanation of why anything exists. In his first way, Aquinas concentrated on the existence of change or motion in the world. He considered the......

Words: 652 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

Philosophy - Cosmological Argument

...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......

Words: 451 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

The Cosmological Argument

...The Cosmological Argument An important argument to try and prove the existence of God is the Cosmological Argument brought on by observations of the physical universe, made by Saint Thomas Aquinas, a thirteenth century Christian philosopher. The cosmological argument is a result from the study of the cosmos; Aquinas borrows ideas from Aristotle to make this systematically organized argument. Aquinas’ first point begins with the observation that everything is moving. Aquinas’ says that everything that moves must be moved by another moving thing, which has to be moved by another moving thing and so on. This cannot be infinite though, because consequently the motion of the series would have no origin, and the origin of this series cannot be moving because then there would have to be something moving it. Therefore, God, being a perfect, unmoved, uncaused being, would have to be the unmoving origin, “The First Mover”, of the series of moving things. The second point made by Aquinas’ is that everything is caused and what is caused to exist has to be caused by another thing because nothing can cause its own self to exist. This chain of caused things caused by another thing cannot be endless because that would mean there would be no beginning to cause the existence therefore, the existence of the origin of this chain of caused things would have to be uncaused. So God would have to be the first uncaused, non dependent origin of all the other existing caused things. Regarding......

Words: 654 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Cosmological Argument

...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,......

Words: 1328 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay

Infinite Regress and the Cosmological Argument

...INFINITE REGRESS AND THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT I n recent years, there has been a revival of interest in that version o f the Cosmological Proof for God's existence which argues for the n ecessity of an uncaused or first cause. The argument can be p resented as follows: I ) We know that at least some things are caused to come i nto being 2) Either whatever causes something to come into being has i tself been caused to come into being or there is somet hing that causes something to come into being which has n ot itself been caused to come into being 3) But if whatever causes something to come into being has i tself been caused to come into being, there is an infinite series of causes stretching back in time 4) But there cannot be such a series 5) Hence there is something that causes something to come i nto being which has not itself been caused to come into b eing. T h a t is, there is an uncaused cause, and this is G od. N ow the major source of disagreement between the defenders and o pponents of this argument is over whether premise (4) is true, i.e. w hether an infinite series of causes stretching back in time is possible. A n umber of fallacious objections to the possibility of an infinite series have been exposed, 1 but there remains one objection that h as not, and in the opinion of several supporters of the argument, c annot be answered. This is essentially that if there were an infinite series of causes stretching back in time, in order to......

Words: 333 - Pages: 2