The Premise of the Cosmological Arguement and Some Objections

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.

The basis of the cosmological argument is that the universe cannot account for its own existence. There must be a reason, the argument says, for the existence of the universe and the reason has to be something which is not part of the physical world of time and space. The cosmological argument was used by Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) in his five ways, which were ways of demonstrating the existence of God through inductive argument based on observation and evidence.

3. Out of all three arguments for the existence only one of them is based on an a priori knowledge and it is the Ontological Argument. This argument is based on the knowledge that God does

Aquinas who was one of the greatest Christian theologians explains the cosmological explanation. Aquinas takes the existence

The third argument for God’s existence is the ontological argument. This argument is unlike the cosmological and teleological arguments in that it does not argue from evidence in the natural world. Thus, it is not a “cause and effect” argument.

The real meat of the concept of first cause is completely left out. The argument from contingency and the temporal argument are never mentioned. When making an argument for or against anything, both sides should be explained equally and fairly. This is a one sided argument. When McCloskey argues against the cosmological proof he uses the argument against first cause and a necessary being as not being an argument, because one cannot say something is necessary for existence just because of its mere existence. If McCloskey wanted to try and validate his argument at this point, it would have been more logical to try and explain away the necessary being cause with The Big Bang Theory, or evolution. Then a real debate could ensue with a counter argument of creation. There are many valid points to be made with C-14 carbon dating and the fact that there is nothing new under the sun. DNA remains the same in all creatures and if evolution was a fact, something would have evolved past what it has been in so many years. There are no new creations and if anything mankind on a general basis seems to be de-evolving in some areas. McCloskey’s argument is not sound. An argument is not a real argument or debate by just simply saying it cannot be. His argument is just so much spinning on the subject. It seems to be one of those if I say it is, so then it is. All the proofs for the existence of God

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 Kalaam Cosmological Argument also brings up the question that if God began to exist at some point, then what caused God to exist. The arguments that Allen and Sotnak present, that God’s knowledge is an actual infinite, therefore disproving Craig’s argument, seem unable to be proven because the actual infinite of God’s knowledge, if it is actually infinite, cannot be proven or disproven by humans. As humans can only experience what is on earth or in the universe, God’s knowledge is incomprehensible to humans. The possibility of an actual infinite is incomprehensible because it is something that never has, and probably never will be on earth, experienced by humans. Despite this, The Kalaam Cosmological Argument could still be a valid argument if the premises were modified to something such as: 1. “Whatever Begins to exist has a cause of it’s existence” 2. “The Universe Began to Exist.” 2.1 The argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite occurring on this earth. 3. “Therefore, the universe has a cause of existence.” This would allow the Kalaam Cosmological Argument to still be logical, although it accounts for the responses from Sotnak and Allen and also accounts

The Universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence”. (Craig) Dr. Craig uses two other arguments to defend the Kalam cosmological argument. These two arguments are the Infinite temporal regress and actual infinity.

“All versions of the cosmological argument begin with the a posteriori assumptions that the universe exists and something outside the universe is required to explain its existence. That is, it is contingent, depending on something outside of itself for its existence.”(Pojman, p.20). The temporal or first cause argument by Kalam who discussed that the universe has a beginning, and it has a cause of its existence; therefore, there should be an uncaused at beginning in time which is God. As Aristotle and other thinkers support this by discussing a bout an infinite regress is not possible, and we cannot explain the existence of the universe by chain of contingent. There should be another type of being that is self –existent and he is the one who created all contingent being. Cosmological argument argues about the existence of God as the first and ultimate cause of the universe .This is a fact that universe did not created itself, it depend on a first caused or uncaused being who itself is the first cause and independent of anything else. When I think deeply about the universe and everything in that I cannot think that they have been created by themselves and there should be an infinite and powerful

Although, we also have no reason to believe that they are false. The five ways also asks how can the cosmological argument avoid contradicting itself. For example, if nothing causes itself how can there be a first cause, which does not require a cause other than itself. The cosmological argument can work on the assumption that the cause of existing things is not a thing, in which case the above contradiction would disappear.

“The strengths of the Cosmological Argument lie in both its simplicity and easily comprehensible concept that there cannot be an infinite number of causes to an event. Some arguments for God's existence require more thought and training in terms and concepts, but this argument is basic and straightforward. Also, it is perfectly logical to assert that objects do not bring themselves into existence and must, therefore, have causes.”

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

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.

Second: The Argument from Efficient Cause. (The sequence of causes which make up this universe must have a First Cause, 1st uncaused cause).