Cosmological Argument For The Existence Of God

In life, there is a constant battle ensuing over faith and reason. Those two things are constantly feeding off of each other in someone’s mind when making a decision. Over time in which some say is a great conversation about history this battle is changing. The Great Conversation of history spans over many eras where the questions of faith and reason are always things battling for a spot in our minds, but they shouldn’t be in battle because they are very much dependent on the other. Among the time periods from Ancient Greece, the Enlightenment, and the 19th century, writers such as Socrates, Kant, and Martin Luther King Jr have looked at the issue of faith and reason.

The famous William Paley has a different ontological argument within his text Natural Theology. The title of the reading gives insight to the theory, which focuses on something called natural design. The writing is based on an intricate and extensive analogy between the man made and the natural. For instance, Paley describes a man made watch in great detail. This intense detail sets the notion that each piece must have been put in place by someone, whom we can infer is a watchmaker. He then compares this to the intricacy of nature, which must have been made by a supreme diety. Such complexity could not have come about by chance. Only the most

- integrative rationalism = consider religion an integral part of the whole enterprise of rational inquiry and accept the following:

The Cosmological Argument attempts to prove that God exists by showing that there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to things that exist. It states that there must be a final uncaused-cause of all things. This uncaused-cause is asserted to be God. Arguments like this are thought up to recognize why we and the universe exist.

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.

Pascal doesn’t understand that the atheist or the believer would be persuaded by his argument. Instead, he handles the Wager to the curious and unconvinced. I have a choice to either believe in god exist or believe that doesn’t exists. First, if I believe in God, and God exist, then I will gain happiness; but if I don’t believe in God, and God doesn’t exist ill pay the consequence. Second, if I don’t believe in God exist and God does exist, then I will gain pain; but if I believe God doesn’t and God doesn’t exist ill pay the consequence. So, I have everything to earn, nothing to lose by believing in God, and I have everything to lose and nothing to earn by not believing in God. Pascal’s wager is at first intent for believing, but not a proof. Yet, the wager assumes many conditions for the wager to fit a rational theory.

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 Strengths and Weaknesses of the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God The cosmological argument seeks to prove the existence of God by looking at the universe. It is an A posteriori proof based on experience and the observation of the world not logic so the outcome is probable or possible not definite. The argument is in three forms; motion, causation and being. These are also the first three ways in the five ways presented by Aquinas through which he believed the existence of God could be shown.

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.

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:

James attempts to establish a will or right to believe. On the other hand, Pascal establishes reasons for logically believing God. This paper will discuss their individual arguments and proceed to show that Pascal’s argument is the more convincing argument of the two. 2. James James view was formulated in response to William Clifford’s view, who argued that “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything on insufficient evidence.”

out that God is unique and that the laws of nature do not apply to

The existence of God is a question that has troubled and plagued mankind since it began to consider logic. Is there a God? How can we be sure that God exists? Can you prove to me that He is real? Does His existence, or lack thereof, make a significant difference? These loaded questions strike at the heart of human existence. But the real question is, can we answer any of them? These questions are answered in the arguments of St. Thomas Aquinas, Blaise Pascal and St. Anselm of Canterbury. For thousands of years, theologians, philosophers and scientists have been trying to prove or disprove God’s existence. Many, including the three mentioned above, have strong proofs and theories that attempt to confirm God’s existence. Although, without any scientific evidence, how can they be entirely sure? “Philosophical proofs can be good proofs, but they do not have to be scientific proofs,” (Kreeft). Gravity similar to God’s existence ; it cannot be seen nor explained, yet it still exists. With faith, reason, understanding and even some math, God’s existence can be verified rationally.

Faith and reason were two modes of belief that dominated the history of Western Civilization. Both faith and reason were popularized as tools to understand the universe in Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian eras. By conflicting with each other, these two modes of belief sparked a lot of controversy. Reason or rationality is belief based on concrete evidence and logic. The development of one’s reason relies heavily on observation and questioning. Greco-Roman philosophers believed in the power of the human mind to understand the world. So in order to find ultimate truth, Greco-Roman philosophers dedicated their lives to perfecting their reasoning skills and encouraged those around them to do the same. Contradictory to reason, faith is the

Descartes is a rationalist about knowledge, so that means he believes that it is possible to gain knowledge through our mind and that we have the ability to know things that we have never seen or experienced before.(Descartes, 1641) He believes that everyone is born with the inherent ability to know two things; mathematics and God. He argues that we have the ability to infer mathematic skills from our minds. (Pismenny, 2016) He also says that we are born with the idea of God and religion already in our minds and that God is responsible for