The Cosmological Argument On The Existence Of God

A common argument used is the cosmological argument or the cause of the universe’s existence. Since the universe exists, what is

The actuality of a divine being the cause of our existence is a topic that has been debated by philosophers for centuries. To this day there is no clear answer as both sides of the argument give reasons to refute the opposing side’s arguments. Ernest Nagel is a well-known philosopher as he is recognized for his works against theism and for supporting atheism in his literary works. In Nagel’s “A Defense Of Atheism” he criticizes the theistic arguments that claim a god is overseeing our world. The ontological, cosmological and teleological arguments are known as the classical arguments for theism. Nagel swiftly pokes many holes in these arguments and runs them to the ground. Besides attacking the flaws in these arguments, Nagel also brings up

The ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments collectively strive to prove one point, the existence of God. Ontological arguments lean on reasoning to prove its point of an a priori being or existence. Cosmological arguments focus on the idea that our infinite and expanding universe had to have been created by God or a higher being, due to the complexity of the universe itself. Teleological argument emphasizes on the idea that God constructed the universe for the sole purpose of completing an end result in which the universe was made for.

1. Because of man’s ignorance and curiosity, arguments for the existence of God have been made over the years. Basically, these arguments are divided into two large groups i.e. logical and metaphysical. Actually, these arguments seek to prove that the existence of a being or having faith with at least one attribute that only God could have is logically necessary.

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.

The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God The cosmological argument seeks to prove the existence of God by looking at the universe. It is an A posteriori proof based on experience and the observation of the world not logic so the outcome is probable or possible not definite. The argument is in three forms; motion, causation and being. These are also the first three ways in the five ways presented by Aquinas through which he believed the existence of God could be shown.

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.

This argument contends that an intelligent designer of the world does exist, and structured the universe so that most natural things fit together for a clear purpose. We can recognize that things in nature seem to be made for specific reasons that are too fortunate to be accidental. For instance, we observe that giraffes have extremely long necks and conveniently eat from the tops of trees. We can also identify that planet earth is just the right distance from the sun and moon to sustain human life. If either of these things were less ideal, there would be drastically worse outcomes for the giraffes and humans on earth. The harmony we witness in nature compels the belief in an intelligent designer.

When looking back of how all of the arguments in philosophy started we must at least be willing to admit the universe had to come from somewhere. The Cosmological argument would be one that most of the universe will agree with, the existence that God did had some part in the universe. We all do not have to agree on the amount of input that God has had, we just know that he did have some part in it. The other problem is that no one is actually saying there is a true existence of God. Anything that exists needs to have a cause. There will always be nay Sayers that will put an argument to everything that has anything to do with the beginning of time. Through reading and beliefs there will always be a theory argument. If we are looking for the

out that God is unique and that the laws of nature do not apply to

The first cause argument is based on cause and effect, it attests that the universe must have a cause, and that this cause is God. The first cause argument is also known as the cosmological argument. The universe could not have come into being without something that started it. Therefore, this argument does show that God exists. This essay will analyse the first cause argument, provide proof of why God is shown that he exists by the first cause argument and, explore the objections and counter objections that people have when it comes to this argument.

I do not find the three arguments I analyzed satisfactory for the existence of God. The existence of God simply cannot be proven. Regardless of how strong a person’s faith is, or how many miracles they claim to have witnessed, God can only ever be a possibility.

Clarke’s Cosmological argument has been around for multiple centuries—the purpose of this argument being to try to prove the existence of God. Although this argument sounds valid—meaning that “IF premises 1 and 2 are true, then the conclusion must be true” — while many people have accepted this argument, it has also caused a lot of questioning and skepticism, mainly because of what the Cosmological Argument uses to support its argument—the Principle of Sufficient reason. Before determining whether the PSR effectively supports Clarke’s Cosmological argument, one must know the Cosmological Argument’s premises and what they mean. Premise 1 of Clarke’s Cosmological Argument asserts that every being is either dependent or independent—meaning

Is God prevalent in modern philosophy? How can one determine such a conclusion without definitive proof of it's existence. Within this essay I will be addressing the topic of the existence of God, I will examine proofs such as the Ontological Argument and Cosmological Argument. In doing so testing its advantages while also providing contradictory arguments as posed by philosophers such as Kant and Hume.

The first cause argument is based on cause and effect, it attests that the universe must have a cause, and that this cause is God. The first cause argument is also known as the cosmological argument. The universe could not have come into being without something that started it. Therefore, this argument does show that God exists. This essay will analyse the first cause argument, provide proof of why God is shown that he exists by the first cause argument and, explore the objections and counter objections that people have when it comes to this argument.