Flanagan Superstring Theory

The Cosmological argument asks the question Where did everything come from? For everything we live with today there is a time in history when it did not exist. If it did not exist at some point then it would need to be created by someone else or something else. Therefore, there would have to be something or someone that was existent first and did not need to be created. This someone or something that Saint Thomas Aquinas refers to is

The view that consciousness defines the enduring self because the memories that a person has and retains in their mind is what defines them as a

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

371). This responds to the objections raised by Thomas Reid in the 18th century (Shoemaker, 2008, p. 340), however, the Memory Theory did require a modification to include the possibility of temporarily forgetting the experiences of an earlier person-stage, “as long as one has the potentiality of remembering it” (Shoemaker, 2008, p. 340). In the conversations held by Gretchen Weirob, Sam Miller and Dave Cohen in Perry’s ‘Dialogue on Personal Identity and Immortality’ (Perry, 1977), this concept is addressed in depth. Miller relays a chapter written by Locke – “the relation between two person-stages or stretches of consciousness that makes them stages of a single person is just that the later one contains memories of an earlier one...I can remember only my past thoughts and feelings, and you only yours...take this relation as the source of identity” (Perry, 1977, p. 343). These concepts are logical possibilities in my opinion, and are far less unstable than those presented within the Body/Soul Theory, as these concepts do not require the senses of others, but the individual’s first person perception of their personal identity.

The Buddha proposed 5 aggregates of clinging: form, feeling, perception, consciousness, and mental formations. If you look at any of them, you'll see that they all change: bodies change and grow older. Parts die. We shed skin, etc. This is very clearly not the same body that we had when we were younger. Our feelings change even faster: we feel pleasant one minute, unpleasant the next, and bored after that. So that fails the definition of a permanent, unchanging self. What about perceptions? Consciousness? Mental formations? They change rapidly, almost whimsically. It makes no sense to claim that any of them is a permanent self, or Atta. So we say, this is not me, this is not mine. As the chant goes: Sabbe sankhara anatta.

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."

On the night three days before her death, Gretchen Weirob and her friends discussed the afterlife and things of the like. I am going to argue that Weirob is right to claim that personal identity cannot consist in the sameness of an immaterial, unobservable soul. – 45 words

When you look at each of the arguments individually I can see how one might come to this conclusion. The cosmological argument only proves (if accepted) that there is a necessary being; however it does not prove that he is divine or perfect. The teleological argument by itself leaves us wondering why we also see chaos in the world around us. Not everything is orderly and perfect. You need to collectively look at each of the arguments prior to coming to a conclusion about the existence of God.

In, “A Dialogue on Personal Identity and Immortality,” the author, John Perry, proposes three totally different ways of thinking about personal identity. The first theory is presented by a character named Gretchen Weirob, she believes that a person is their body. By this she means that a person’s identity is intertwined with the DNA and molecules of their body. Their personality as well as their personal identity can’t be separated from their body, and they cannot exist without it. The second theory was presented by a character named Sam Miller, he believes that a person is their immaterial soul. So in general, Sam thinks that the soul is this invisible, immaterial substance that is able to exist from the body. The third and final theory was presented by a character named Dave Cohen. Cohen believes that a person has continuity of memory, and/or psychology. So in general Cohen’s theory is that personal identity is a set of correlating experiences and/or memories enclosed in the brain. All three of the personal identity theories state some very valid points, but they also have some inconsistencies, some more than others. But there is one theory that seems to be the most credible, and creates a very compelling argument while also having a little science to back up some of its points.

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.

Per Chaffee, the cosmological argument examines the “orderly, coherent, and intelligible nature of the cosmos” and examines the proofs that are given by science and philosophers for God to have designed the universe (Chaffee 338). He states that in the cosmological argument, the universe is contingent or dependent on God to create it because upon examination of the universe, everything owes its existence to something else; following this logic, for the universe to exist, there must be something that the universe owes its existence to (338). Theists claim that this reason for the universe to be in existence is divine creation by an almighty, eternal, God. Chaffee continues on to state the cosmological theory provides the basis for its argument

Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument is a method for proving God’s existence and its foundation is based on the fact and observation that the universe exists. Aquinas states that in order for the universe to exist (an idea that we know to be true), there must also exist a cause that caused the existence of the universe. He concludes his argument by saying that God, an unperceivable image, is the cause of the universe, which further verifies His existence. This argument proves that in order to accept the factual, former claim that the universe exists, it is necessary to accept the latter claim that God exists as well.

Following the rabbit example with one along a broader scale, if a theist believes that if a substance cannot be produced by anything else, and an atheist would similarly agree, than that substance must inhere in itself, or that, “…if everything is caused by itself or another than God must be a substance, and as a substance, then His existence involves essence. Since God’s essence exists, then so does God.” (Lin, 2007, p. 274) What if an atheist believed that the cosmological argument was unsound because they were quite certain that God did not exist. Given their argument, they would in fact, by rejecting God’s existence, be acknowledging it based on a logical inference suggested by Kelly

This argument is subject to a simple objection, introduced by asking, “Does God have a cause of his existence?”If, on the one hand, God is thought to have a cause of his existence, then positing the existence of God in order to explain the existence of the universe doesn’t get us anywhere. Without God there is one entity the existence of which we cannot explain, namely the universe; with God there is one entity the existence of which we cannot explain, namely God. Positing the existence of God, then, raises as many problems as it solves, and so the cosmological argument leaves us in no better position than it found us, with one entity the existence of which we cannot explain. If, on the other hand, God is thought not to have a cause of his existence, i.e. if God is thought to be an uncaused being, then this too raises difficulties for the simple cosmological argument. For if God were an uncaused being then his existence would

John Locke believed, the enduring self is defined by a person’s memory. With memory there is an enduring self, and without it there is no self at all. I believe there is an enduring self, but it is a little more complicated than that. Even if a person encounters a dramatic change to his/her life, they are still the same self, the same person. I believe memory is not the only factor that defines the self. Many things form this enduring self, and these things work together to form an identity, to form who you are now. These things are your memories, your experiences and your personality. You may change and grow over time as you are exposed to new experiences, but under it all you are still ....you. But is a