Argument Vs Cosmological Argument

1. The Cosmological Argument for the existence of God is based on the principle of cause and effect. What this basically means is that the universe was the effect of a cause, which was God. One of the oldest and most well known advocates of the Cosmological Argument was Thomas Aquinas who outlines his argument for the existence of God in his article entitled The Five Ways. The first way in his argument is deals with motion. Aquinas says that in order for something to be in motion something had to move it because it is impossible for something to move without the presence of some sort of outside force upon it. Therefore the world around us, nature, and our very existence could not have been put into motion without the influence of the

Parmenides of Elea once presented the expression ex nihilo nihil fit, which translates to nothing comes from nothing for one of his many theses. The Cosmological Argument, an argument of the posteriori category, meaning that it requires data based on past experiences, argues for the existence of God with this type of expression at its core. By attempting to prove how the universe must be influenced by an independent being that has godlike qualities, cosmological arguments suggest that it is rational to believe in an omnipotent being and its accountability of creating the universe.

The real meat of the concept of first cause is completely left out. The argument from contingency and the temporal argument are never mentioned. When making an argument for or against anything, both sides should be explained equally and fairly. This is a one sided argument. When McCloskey argues against the cosmological proof he uses the argument against first cause and a necessary being as not being an argument, because one cannot say something is necessary for existence just because of its mere existence. If McCloskey wanted to try and validate his argument at this point, it would have been more logical to try and explain away the necessary being cause with The Big Bang Theory, or evolution. Then a real debate could ensue with a counter argument of creation. There are many valid points to be made with C-14 carbon dating and the fact that there is nothing new under the sun. DNA remains the same in all creatures and if evolution was a fact, something would have evolved past what it has been in so many years. There are no new creations and if anything mankind on a general basis seems to be de-evolving in some areas. McCloskey’s argument is not sound. An argument is not a real argument or debate by just simply saying it cannot be. His argument is just so much spinning on the subject. It seems to be one of those if I say it is, so then it is. All the proofs for the existence of God

And yet, intelligent design theorists and Creationists look at nature and see the work of a divine designer, God, a reflection of his intentional purpose to create the universe. Where their theories are flawed with no real proof, Darwin uses inverse thinking that suggests that important things can indeed stem from unimportant things. Instead of relying on unproven mysteries to prove that God created the universe, evolutionists have scientific evidence to prove that no God was needed to create the universe. As scientific knowledge grows and more evidence of evolution is found, the story of evolution gains more strength, giving atheists more rational reasons to believe that God did not create the

1. The first objection to the existence of God is the proponent of the Cosmological Argument makes the mistake of the collection of dependent beings as it itself one big depended

There is no objective evidence to demonstrate the existence of nature’s creator. If we were to think the design argument was reasonable, then one must also take under consideration the amount of ‘creators’ are required

The cosmological argument for the existence of God is based on causation and the world having a beginning. It holds that everything that exists has a cause and there must have been an initial cause. The argument attempts to prove the existence of God by making an inference from the world. It starts from the reality that things exist and then follows that there is a cause for the existence of these things. It acknowledges that something caused the universe to exist and some thing is currently keeping it existing.

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.

First and foremost, the cosmological argument does not necessarily make an argument for God’s existence. This particular argument leads us to a first cause. It is simply saying that everything that exists needs a cause. According to Manis and Evans, God is not a contingent being. Atheists argue that everything has a cause or an origin but if God had an Origin then he wouldn’t be God. The cosmological argument is not an end all prove all to the existence of God it is merely an argument that pushes us to go deeper and to study God and the origin of the universe more intensively. McCloskey attempts to dismiss this argument altogether but for the previous reasons mentioned he is misguided when he states that the cosmological argument “does not entitle us to postulate and all-powerful, all perfect, uncaused

The Cosmological Argument: a. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. Pretty self-explanatory... b. The universe began to exist.

"Intelligent Design is not tantamount to the biblical doctrine of creation. Theologically, Intelligent Design falls far short of requiring any affirmation of the doctrine of creation as revealed in the Bible. Nevertheless, it is a useful and important intellectual tool, and a scientific movement with great promise."

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

Many writers refer to this argument as the uncreated creator proof. All things in nature are transitory and thus may exist or not exist. Because nature is time limited things of the world either exist or they do not. Natural things cannot exist and not exist at the same time. Because of that reality, we can reason that at one time nothing temporal existed. Through this line of thinking we can conclude that not all beings exist as contingent beings but there must be a being that exists because of its own necessity. This being is the uncreated creator that we know as God. This uncreated creator brings all

I believe that that the Cosmological argument gives good reason to believe in the existence of God. The Cosmological argument focuses on everything having a cause except one thing that started it all, this starter is known as the “Prime Mover”. The Prime Mover is the one that starts everything without anything having a previous effect on it. With that people have assumed that the logical answer to who the prime mover is, is God. This to me seems the most logical of arguments because although there is the idea of eternity and an eternal cycle there has to be a starting point. I do not believe the argument is successful.

Some Christians firmly believe that the universe has arisen completely through a miraculous act of God and completely reject scientific theories. This is called ‘creationism’. Another attack on scientific arguments is the ‘First Cause’ theory introduced by Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas once quoted that “the universe couldn’t have simply sprung from nothing”; therefore, one is forced to reach the conclusion that it is caused to exist by something. The ‘big bang’ is not accepted, as this is not answering what caused this to happen. After a series of questioning, most reach the conclusion of God.