Examples Of Cosmological Argument

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.

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

The argument Renatus intends to make with this ideology is that every effect must contain the same properties as its cause, and vice versa (41). This point is the precursor to his first proof of the existence of God. The understanding is that a rock could not have been a rock unless the forces, by which it was created, also contained the qualities of a rock (41). Alternatively, as much as a substance can only exist as a result of something of equal perfection, for an idea to be derived from a cause different from its effect, the idea would have been created from nothingness. Therefore, because an idea is not (nor cannot be) nothing, it must always be the case that reality follows this cause and effect relationship (41).

Typically, cosmological arguments occur in two different phases. The first phase’s purpose is to provide the premise that there is a ‘first cause’ or an

Thomas Aquinas’s cosmological argument is a posteriori argument that Aquinas uses to prove the existence of God. Aquinas argues that, “Nothing can move itself, so whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this causal loop cannot go on to infinity, so if every object in motion had a mover, there must be a first mover which is the unmoved mover, called God.” (Aquinas, Question 2, Article 3). I do agree with Aquinas’s cosmological argument in proving the existence of God with several reasons.

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

Humans can never know for the certain why the universe was created or what caused it but, we can still create arguments and theories to best explain what might have created the universe. The cosmological argument is another idea to prove the existence of god. Many philosophers debate wheatear the cosmological argument is valid. The cosmological argument starts off quite simply: whatever exists must come from something else. Nothing is the source of its own existences, nothing is self-creating []. The cosmological argument states at some point, the cause and effect sequence must have a beginning. This unexpected phenomenal being is god. According to the argument, god is the initial start of the universe as we know it. Though nothing 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.

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

Thomas Aquinas believed that the existence of God is self-evident, but rejected the idea that it can be deduced from claims about the concept of God. He critiques Anselm’s ontological argument, stating, “not everyone who hears this word ‘God’ understands it to signify that some have believed God to be a body” . This critique is plausible because most people have different ideas of who God is and what He does. Anselm’s argument works only to convince all people to define the notion of God in the same way. However, Anselm may rebut this critique, arguing that his ontological argument could be restated.

In the Cosmological argument, we are presented with a very sound argument. In this argument, Aquinas is answering the question of why there has to be a first cause and why the first cause is God. He tells us that everything that exist in this universe needs an explanation for why it exist. Secondly, Aquinas tells us that all the objects that exist now were caused to exist by other objects before them and this cycle goes on. Thirdly, he tells us the universe couldn’t possibly be something that goes on infinitely.

This paper also aims at discussing three criticisms of the aforementioned argument before making an assessment of the value of the argument for belief in God. Thus, whether the argument is convincing or not. Eventually, a conclusion shall be drawn concerning

The cosmological argument thus provides us with the grounds to believe in the existence of a “beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, Personal Creator of the Universe” (Craig). This explanation can point to none other than

Firstly I would like to start my argument with the famous 13th century philosopher, Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas’ argument is known as the cosmological argument. This is the idea of: the unmoved mover, the uncaused causer and idea of contingency, these three arguments are all a posteriori (based on the evidence in the universe around us). The unmoved mover is the concept that, in theory (is logically acceptable even for an atheist), that nothing can be in motion without something first putting

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