Cosmological Argument Essay

The question of whether God exists pervades the study of philosophy, with both sides providing substantial arguments that appear believable upon first reading them. However, delving below the surface of such arguments shows holes in the reasoning of these philosophers. Though I would like to believe in the existence of God, after seeing the arguments for God's existence thoroughly discredited, I am not entirely sure what to believe.

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.

To say that “something” is a proof one must understand that this “something” must have been tested and with sufficient evidence, in order to produce a belief in its truth. An argument on the other hand is not so. An argument can be a discussion involving differing points of view. Moreover, mainly an argument is a person’s attempt to persuade or present evidence from their point of view. Nevertheless, McCloskey makes claims from arguments as though they are proofs. He then gives reasons as to why these arguments are not adequate enough to be presented as proofs. But McCloskey has somehow in his mind attempted to present arguments as proofs in order to validate his personal argument and push his claims as opposition to the Cosmological and Teleological arguments. But these arguments were not meant to be used as proofs of Gods existence but to merely shed insight and to persuade or something one may consider as a basis for their belief. McCloskey does not allow himself to be persuaded because he is considering these arguments as proofs which

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:

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.

In critiquing the article written by William Lane Craig title “The Cosmological Argument” let me first define how some define the cosmological argument. In reading about the cosmological argument it is basically an argument that begins with the existence of the universe and tries to prove God’s existence. Thomas Aquinas said it this way, (1) “everything in the universe is moved by something else. Unless we can go back in time forever, with things being constantly moved by something else, there must be a point where movement started.” (Godwin) Aquinas goes on to say, “there must be a Prime mover that began movement in the Universe, when there was nothing, and this is God.” (Godwin) In the bible, it states, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty,

Based on the module reading and from my own experience, the existence of a god is unconfirmed and doubtful. The ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments supporting the existence of God do not provide empirical evidence that can be decisively attributed to a deity of any sort. The ontological argument proposed by Anselm in which God can be proven to exist through reasoning alone is flawed. Unlike the argument suggests, you cannot simply think something into existence by ascribing that thing with the property of existence as Immanuel Kant pointed out. The cosmological argument is more sound with a level of support by the observable world around us, but still contains a fundamental flaw. The cosmological argument holds that nearly

When looking back of how all of the arguments in philosophy started we must at least be willing to admit the universe had to come from somewhere. The Cosmological argument would be one that most of the universe will agree with, the existence that God did had some part in the universe. We all do not have to agree on the amount of input that God has had, we just know that he did have some part in it. The other problem is that no one is actually saying there is a true existence of God. Anything that exists needs to have a cause. There will always be nay Sayers that will put an argument to everything that has anything to do with the beginning of time. Through reading and beliefs there will always be a theory argument. If we are looking for the

Exploring the Possibility of Updating the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God The term cosmological comes from the Greek language, meaning ‘world’ or ‘universe.’ The argument is based on facts about the world. The topic of cosmology refers to the study of the universe.

Lecture’s Central Argument: Different societies have viewed cosmology differently over time and this view has evolved due to new ideologies.

In this paper the overall question will be “does God exist?” I will start this paper with my views before this class. Then, I will go into different theories, philosophers, and arguments that we have learned about during this class with that I will also include possible objections to these views. Finally, I will wrap this paper up by saying what my views are just from what we learned in from the class with no influence from my beginning views. Before this class I wouldn’t have really even thought about if God exists or not because I was raised believing that God is all seeing and all creating.

Instead, the evil we know is merely the product of a limited, human perspective on “the true character of God’s creative bounty” (Cahn, 252). In this theory, there is only one element: God’s benevolence. The “evil” that humans perceive is not the opposite of God’s will, but simply the absence of his will. This theory is similar to the idea that “darkness is only the absence of light,” or “badness is only the absence of goodness.” If this reasoning is correct, then God could not have created evil because evil does not actually exist.

This Plague was sufficient in releasing the people of Israel because it was not only a dangerous plague placed upon the Egyptians, nonetheless ruthless for them. Moreover, God words spoken in Exodus 11:7, made the Egyptians recognize that he is a man of his word; besides, he had the people of Israel at heart. Furthermore, he made it clear in the verse that, he would put a distinction between the Egyptians and his people (Israelites). Besides, he would not only protect the Israelites, but also making sure that nothing evil transpire among them. “But on that day I will set apart the land of Goshen, where my people dwell, so that no swarms of flies shall be there, that you may know that I am the Lord in the midst of the earth” (Exodus 8:22).

Throughout history, the worship of gods has been a part of daily life even amidst those cultures that have been considered "savage". The reactions, movement, existence, comparisons, purposes, and common beliefs of the world show that there must be a god. The existence of a god is an irrefutable fact.

Cosmological arguments are one of the oldest types of arguments for the existence of god beginning in the world of the ancient Greek philosophers such as Plato………………. These types of arguments can be a priori or a posterori. Many great philosophers since have tackled this argument. Many theists have used this the cosmological argument to justify their beliefs in God some include Aquinas, Leibniz, Swinburne or Spinoza while many famous atheists challenge this view such as Hume, Kant, Russell.