Clarke 's Cosmological Argument On The Existence Of God

In the following paper, I will outline Samuel Clarke’s “Modern Formulation of the Cosmological Argument” and restate some of the points that he makes. Samuel Clarke’s argument for the existence of God states that “There has existed from eternity some one unchangeable and independent being” (37). The argument follows a logical flow and can be better understood when the structure is laid out and the argument reconstructed.

In my understanding of the Cosmological Argument I would have to say that I agree the most with Clarke’s explanation. Not only is it short and sweet but it almost takes Aquinas’ argument and folds it up and puts it in its pocket. I think believe it is much clearer for anyone to see and admit that everything that happens in this world is connected and caused by previous events and decisions. Due to this anyone can go back to the story of Adam and Eve and ask themselves the question of what caused these two? It is at this point where one is forced to admit that there is an “unmoved mover”, an independent being, and an uncaused cause who is called God.

According to the fourth premise of the Cosmological Argument, if something has always existed, then reality is either a series of dependent beings, or there is an independent being that has existed at all times. This premise, supported by PSRa, is based around the belief that there must be an infinite succession of dependent beings, or an always-present independent being. In other words, the existence of a series of dependent beings would be caused by the series before it, which would have been caused by the series before it, which would have been caused by the series before it, and so on. The other possible explanation would be that there is an independent being that always existed and acted as starting point to this infinite pattern, as PSRa states that there must be an explanation to what would have caused the start of the whole series.

As regards the cosmological argument itself, McCloskey states that "all we entitled to infer is the existence of a cause commensurate with the effect to be explained, the universe, and this does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause." (p.63) This is indeed true, there is no reason to necessarily infer a God person, however; the inference is of the nature that suggests (hence the term infer) a cause of such magnitude that it is practically God-like. Moreover, his words do not disprove the rational of a God. Entitlement not to call this cause "God" is neither entitlement to deny calling this cause or considering this cause to be "God."

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.

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

The Kalam Cosmological Argument presented by Dr. William Lane Craig states that everything that beings to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist; therefore: the universe has a cause. The Cosmological argument argues that the universe that we live in has a cause and purpose. There must be a creator (God) of the universe because the universe cannot have a cause without something or someone feeling the need to create. In the Craig-Dacey debate Dr. Dacey opening argument or rebuttal was aimed to disprove God’s existence. Dr. Dacey begin to show that the concept of God is self- contradictory.

He went on to say that even if the universe did begin, it does not

Objection zero states, “The Cosmological Argument does not get us to the Christian God”. Some might think of the independent being as something different than God, though Clarke’s intention was never to get us fully to God. Clarke never personifies the independent being, thus it could be anything one might believe it to be. The overall goal of the Cosmological Argument was to get us all to accept there might be an independent being and it is the responsibility of other arguments to show us that the independent being is

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.

The first step of the argument outlines the need for “ an adequate explanation of the unity of the system as whole, how each of the parts is correlated with the others to from reciprocal laws, and then connected with the whole (Clarke 224).” The universe is a complex system that demonstrates interacting parts whose actions are dependent on each other. The cause of the whole system must have come before all these parts and is independent of the system entirely. After considering, the complexity of manipulating interacting elements in such a vast system, the second step argues, “such a cause can only be one possessing intelligence (Clarke 225).” Organizing multiple elements to work together cohesively and adhere uniformly to the same set of laws not only on the individual level but also on the scale of the universe would require the perspective of a guiding agent. Clarke argues this guiding agent is God. However, biologists interpret evolution as the universe’s guiding agent. Clarke embraces evolution but he notices it’s limitation as a great play of chance over time. There must be a stable set of background laws to lay the foundation for evolution to play out. The intelligible designer created the stable guiding rules and then allowed evolution to shot chance into life, making it unpredictable. Clarke views God as the intelligent designer that brought unity to the

Theories have arisen from many different philosophers trying to explain the existence of God; the Cosmological Argument is one such theory. The Cosmological Argument has been changed and reviewed for years; however, the focus has always stayed the same. The universe is a prime example that there is a God. A simple Cosmological argument states that:

Firstly, the universe is a large and unforgiving place, with limitless things that we have yet to understand. The cosmological argument argues that the universe is so complex that something or someone with great power had to design it. Then cosmological argument although a scientific hypothesis, visibly confirms a very important element of Christianity, that God is the undeniable author of the universe. In fact, this argument is based on facts, an objective view of how our universe generally operates. St Thomas Aquinas formulated this argument, he rejected the ontological argument, because the world had too much evidence that a God truly existed. As a result St Thomas Aquinas concocted the five ways to prove the existence of God. The five ways composed of change in motion, cause and effect, contingency, perfection, and order. Conversely, only the first three of the five ways generally support his cosmological argument. Scientifically, this argument helps us to develop a logical view point on the existence of God. We can use information gained to scientific observation to greater understanding of how God developed the place that we call home, the

A cosmological argument focuses on the notion of causation and that everything in the universe including us must have an initial cause, for nothing comes from nothing. Thomas

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.