Kalam Cosmological Argument

This essay will not review all of the objections as this would result in overlap and repetition. The Argument from Design argues that the universe was designed by an intelligent designer, God and no further evidence is required to prove their existence. It compares Items in nature

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

William Paley’s teleological argument (also known as the argument from design) is an attempt to prove the existence of god. This argument succeeds in proving that while existence was created by an aggregation of forces, to define these forces, as a conscious, rational, and ultimately godlike is dubious. Although the conclusions are valid, the argument makes several logical errors. The teleological argument relies on inductive reasoning, rendering the argument itself valid, but unsound. The argument fails to apply its own line of reasoning to itself, resulting in infinite regression. Beyond the scope of its logical flaws, the arguments content lacks accurate comparisons. The argument hinges on a

The design argument is also referred to at the Teleological Argument stemmed from the Greek work ‘Telos’ meaning end or purpose. It is an ‘A posterior’ argument (from experience) based on our empirical senses and it is synthetic meaning that it is from observation. The argument is also inductive meaning there a number of possible conclusions. The main basis of the Teleological argument is based on a designer commonly known as ‘the classical God of theism’ (hereafter referred to as God)

Parmenides of Elea once presented the expression ex nihilo nihil fit, which translates to nothing comes from nothing for one of his many theses. The Cosmological Argument, an argument of the posteriori category, meaning that it requires data based on past experiences, argues for the existence of God with this type of expression at its core. By attempting to prove how the universe must be influenced by an independent being that has godlike qualities, cosmological arguments suggest that it is rational to believe in an omnipotent being and its accountability of creating the universe.

The example of the watch exemplifies the order and complexity of the universe, and also is shown as evidence that the universe was designed. The universe is perceived to consist of many different parts functioning in harmony to accomplish some purpose, giving us reason to believe that an intelligent agent created it for a purpose. Also in this argument from design, Paley tries to show how the common objections some may bring to the argument are insufficient in disproving

He went on to say that even if the universe did begin, it does not

There is no objective evidence to demonstrate the existence of nature’s creator. If we were to think the design argument was reasonable, then one must also take under consideration the amount of ‘creators’ are required

To what extent does The Cosmological Argument prove the existence of God? There are many different arguments which attempt to help us understand more about the universe. One of these arguments is the Cosmological Argument which is essentially an argument which consists of 8 main arguments; things exist because of a cause, these things do not have to exist but they do, the chain of causes goes back to the beginning of time, time began when the universe was created, there must have been a first cause which is responsible for everything else including the universe, the first cause must have a necessary existence, only God has necessary existence, therefore God is the first cause of the universe's existence. The argument basically puts across

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 Kalām cosmological argument suggests that the universe was created by God. The Kalām argument rests on the idea that the universe has a beginning in time whereas other forms of the argument are consistent with the universe having an infinite past. However according to the Kalām argument, it is because the universe has a beginning in time that its existence is in need of an explanation. The Kalām cosmological argument is rooted in the Ilm al- Kalām heritage.

Take a moment to think about the world around you and all of its beauty. From the ever flowing Mississippi River, to the ledges of the mighty Grand Canyon, or even to the peak of Mt. Fuji there is an immense amount of things on this Earth that are so incredible it is hard to believe science and chance created these magnificent things. So what is the best explanation for these occurrences? I believe that these occurrences scream of an intelligent designer which also leads us to the existence of God. First I must explain what an argument for design is and then we will look at Paley’s Watchmaker Theory to give us better insight on this argument. Then I will point

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.

The Cosmological Argument as previously discussed, is the existence of the universe and “cosmos” is the direct suggestion that God exists. This can be and is often indicated as the “first-cause argument”. This is because they believe that God is the first reason for the cause of the existence of the universe. One of McCloskey first complaints is that people are not suitable to believe that the universe needs a cause. McCloskey finds this to be true simply because, it would require a root for the universe which in turn, would also obligate a source for God. He then continues to profess that even if the cosmological argument is able to facilitate us to hypothesize the existence of God, then there would be no reason to hypothesize that God has to be omniscient, omnipotent, and many more. There are living things in our world that have no clue how they came to be. Essentially everything that happens has to be caused by something, which would mean that the actualization of our universe has to be contingent on a cause. He also stated that he believes that the cosmological argument, “does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause,“ (McCloskey, 51).

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.