Cosmology Reflection Paper

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.

Evidence: The foregoing generations beheld God and the nature face to face; we, through their eyes. Why should not we also enjoy an original relation to the universe. (“Nature”

Before attending GCU and using the sources that they provide, I normally would use resources and tools that were provided by various universities. Two notable examples that I would use where Purdue University's OWL and also Calvin College's KnightCite. OWL is a particularly helpful source since it offers a wide variety of articles regarding various topics that play a key role within successful writing. KnightCite was also a source I widely used because of the fact that it was a great way in order to get MLA (which I used in high school) citations for works used in my papers. However, nowadays I mainly use the sources provided by GCU such as the writing center which I have found to be quite helpful. In particular, I enjoy the templates provided

People have contemplated many different theories about the creation of the world. There are two versions that rival each other and those are the religious and the scientific version.

Christianity explains the universes existence with the teaching that there is a God; a supreme, good

The Cosmological Principle is the assumption that if you viewed the universe as a whole "it would appear roughly the same everywhere and in every direction. That is, the matter in the universe is homogeneous and isotropic when averaged over very large scales" (Universe 101, n.p.).

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.

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."

My dad used to tell me all the time that we are all a work in progress. At the time I didn’t know exactly know what he meant. As years have passed on and my relationship with Christ matured, I now know what he meant. We as children of God can never be perfect, but what we can do is strive to be like Christ, this is what the definition of a Christian is, “Christ like”. I try to share the good news of Jesus, and when I do I like to talk to people about God’s Grace and through his son Jesus there is no Condemnation.

At the very core of naturalist beliefs however, matter is all that there was, is, and ever will be. The implications of this take on reality is that humans are merely complex machines, a result of evolution. How then, can one be sure that what one thinks to be logic and reason is really significant at all? Ironically, naturalism began as an Age of Enlightenment based on the affirmation of human intelligence, but a truly consistent naturalist leads to what is called a nihilist. Nihilists realize that they can place no confidence in knowing anything at all. In an attempt to escape the hopeless vacuum of nihilism, existentialism emerged, accepting all the propositions of naturalism except those regarding human nature and humans’

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.

In order to understand our place in the universe, we must understand the universe itself. Scientists, researchers, astronomers, cosmologists, physicists, amateur astronomers and a slew of other groups of individuals largely interested in the cosmos, help with discovering new and fascinating theories or proof of different phenomenon within the universe. Three scientific articles help readers to realize scientists are constantly deep in work to unravel the hidden truths. “Dark Matter in the Discovery Age”, “Why the Universe Had no Beginning”, and “What String Theory tells Us About the Universe” include theories vastly different from one another, but lead to the same conclusion; the universe’s creation.

The cosmological argument takes the suggestion that the beginning of the universe was uncaused to be impossible. The idea of an uncaused event is absurd; nothing comes from nothing. The universe was therefore caused by something outside it, God. Without God there would be one entity, the existence of which we could not explain, namely the universe; with God there would be one entity the existence of which we could not explain, namely God. Positing the existence of God, then, would raise as many problems as it solved, and so the cosmological argument would leave us in no better position than it found us.

Christian Science is a religion that lets you understand God, Jesus Christ, good from evil,

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.