Outline the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God (21 Marks)

Saint Thomas Aquinas stated this first creator is God and that God was so powerful he needs no creator to exist. The third argument of God's existence that was given unto to us from Saint Thomas Aquinas is The Cosmological argument. This argument is otherwise known as The Proof from Necessary versus Possible Being. The Cosmological argument can often be confused with the second argument of The first cause but they are different in many ways.

The cosmological argument is an a posteriori argument based on the question of the relation of the universe’s existence and God’s existence. This argument focuses on the theory that if the universe exists then something must have caused it to existence, ie. A God or Creator. Supporters of this argument claim that to fully comprehend the existence of the universe, one must rely on a theory of a God however critics would say that due to the inability to prove God’s existence means that the universe cannot be fully explained. Many who don’t support the cosmological believe there doesn’t necessarily need to be an explanation for the universe’s existence as it

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

Some of the three major arguments for the existence of God are cosmological, ontological, and teleological arguments. Cosmological argument is the reasoning that the being of the universe is powerful proof for the existence of a God who made it. There are two main forms of cosmological argument, the modal and temporal. Modal cosmological argument, also known as the argument from contingency, recommends that because the world may not have existed, we then need some clarification of why it does exist. When there is more than one likelihood, something has to decide which of the possibilities is understood clearly. Therefore the world is contingent, because there has to be a logical reason for its existence. This form of argument also claims that the only type of existence that doesn’t need any clarification is a being that does not failed to exist such as God. Temporal cosmological argument, also known as the Kalam argument, contends that all evidence are that there is a point in life at which the world began to exist, and that this starting must either have been caused or uncaused. The cosmological argument used by Aquinas declares that since nothing originates from nothing. Therefore the world must have been brought into reality by something outside it, which can be called "God".

Throughout many centuries philosophers have argued over the existence of God. In today’s society many people tend to hesitate in believing in a God because of the new scientific discoveries. For example, in the mid 1990s scientists built the Hubble telescope which revealed that there were billions of galaxies in our universe, this discovery led some people to question how can one divine being create so much and yet have a personal connection with everyone in the world. Which, in result, may take some scientific explanation to strengthen one’s belief in God, but for those who believe there is a benevolent God they do not need science to show proof that he exists because of their morals and beliefs they have been raised to follow. In this paper I will prove that God does exist by explaining the ontological, cosmological, and design argument.

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 Kalam Cosmological Argument presented by Dr. William Lane Craig states that everything that beings to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist; therefore: the universe has a cause. The Cosmological argument argues that the universe that we live in has a cause and purpose. There must be a creator (God) of the universe because the universe cannot have a cause without something or someone feeling the need to create. In the Craig-Dacey debate Dr. Dacey opening argument or rebuttal was aimed to disprove God’s existence. Dr. Dacey begin to show that the concept of God is self- contradictory.

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

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 is “an argument from the existence of the world as we know it, and not as it is often set out as simply an argument from the existence of something” (McCloskey, 1968, p. 51). In other words, this argument states that the existence of God is proven in the sense that there had to be some sort of designer of the world. The argument does not state whether it was a human being or a thing, but the mere fact that the world exists as it does so today, is proof enough there is a God. McCloskey takes the stand that the actuality of something, like the world does not allow for the assumption to be made that there is a present God. He believes that there is no reasoning within the idea of existence that can lead to the belief that there is a God. He believes that all the argument allows us to assume is that the cause of the existence of the earth “is powerful enough and imperfect enough to have created the sort of world as we know” (McCloskey, 1968, p. 51). His stands on cosmological arguments lead him to believe that there is nothing in the world that can even begin to give us any clue that the creation of the world is due to a all-perfect being (McCloskey, 1968, p. 51). In order to negate the claims made by McCloskey that there is no all-perfect being that created the world; the non-temporal form of the cosmological argument can explain why the cause of the universe must be

My favorite argument for the existence of God is Thomas Aquinas’ fourth cosmological argument, which is based on our conviction that things can be quantified. If something can be sweet-sweeter-sweetest or big-bigger-biggest, there must be an absolute maximum by which to set the standard to judge all the rest. (Highfield, 2008). I’ve always felt that nothing comes from nothing. Everything has to have come from something. If our world is the happenstance of some cosmic collision, where did the colliding matters come from? There must be a Creator who is greater than creation, i.e. God, “the uncreated creator of the world.” (Highfield, 2008, p. 94). Like Pascal, I’ve always felt it better to believe in God’s existence and risk only the loss of

This paper will discuss the logical vindications for the existence of God. I will examine the strengths and weaknesses, through criticising existing arguments from various philosophers and thereby determine that the ontological argument which states God exists in both the human mind and in reality, is a strong statement. The analytic statement, which St Anselm devised, indicates that even atheist who does not believe in God also approves of his theory of God. I will evaluate the deductive, ontological arguments on the existence of God and thus state how the ontological argument, which I have accepted, rationally justifies God’s existence.

Du Chatalet begins her cosmological argument by stating a base assumption that something exists because I exist. From this foundation, du Chatalet argues that, because something exists, that something must have existed eternally. If this is not the case, then that something would have sprung forth from nothing, which is a contradiction in terms [Ex Nihilos Nihil Fit]. The something which has existed eternally cannot owe its existence to an external cause, for if that something was created by something else, then it would follow that this chain would continue on ad infinitum. For everything in that infinite chain would owe its existence to something else. As this chain of beings would culminate into being produced by nothing, which is again a contradiction in terms, it follows that the being which exists without cause must be God. Therefore, God must exist; to argue otherwise would be a contradiction.

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.

Throughout the course of this essay we shall examine two of the major philosophical arguments for the existence of God. The arguments that we are going to focus on shall be the Design argument and the Ontological argument. We shall compare, evaluate and discuss both the Design (or teleological) argument for the existence of God and the Ontological Argument for the existence of God, as well as highlighting philosophical criticisms of both theories too. By doing so, we shall attempt to draw a satisfactory conclusion and aim gain a greater understanding of the respective theories and their criticisms of each theory.