The Question of Why God Exists

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

One burning and enduring problem in philosophy to which we have given considerable examination is the question of the existence of God--the superlative being that philosophers have defined and dealt with for centuries. After reading the classic arguments of St. Anselm and St. Thomas Aquinas, the contentious assertions of Ernest Nagel, and the compelling eyewitness accounts of Julian of Norwich, I have been introduced to some of the most revered and referenced arguments for and against God's existence that have been put into text. All of them are well-thought and well-articulated arguments, but they have their holes. The question of God's true existence, therefore, is still not definitively answered and put to rest; the intensity of this

Sir Thomas Aquinas and William Paley present two arguments for the existence of God. Aquinas defines God as omnibenevolent (all good) for his argument, and he continues in “The Five Ways” to present arguments to prove God’s existence (Rosen et al. 11). Paley, on the other hand, primarily defines God as a designer worthy of our admiration for his work (Rosen et al. 27). During class discussion, defining God involved three major qualities: omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. Both Aquinas and Paley are attempting to prove the existence of the (Christian) God associated with these qualities. Although Aquinas’s “Cosmological Argument” and Paley’s “Argument from Design” have different premises, both have a similar logical gap in their

1. The first objection to the existence of God is the proponent of the Cosmological Argument makes the mistake of the collection of dependent beings as it itself one big depended

Theories have arisen from many different philosophers trying to explain the existence of God; the Cosmological Argument is one such theory. The Cosmological Argument has been changed and reviewed for years; however, the focus has always stayed the same. The universe is a prime example that there is a God. A simple Cosmological argument states that:

Arguments concerning the existence of God remain a bone of contention in philosophy of religion, various cultures and philosophies. Over the centuries, there have been many attempts by religious people to prove the existence of God. It is in these concerted efforts that a canon of various arguments has been established. In this paper we shall explore William Lane Craig’s Kalam cosmological argument. To achieve this, we shall give an account of what we see as most convincing in this argument.

This week's reading sparked memories of my childhood where I asked questions like "what is the last number in the world?", or "who is God's mom?", and getting the answer, "infinity", or "he is his own mom", was beyond my understanding. However, the three different arguments for God's existence are not beyond my understanding and although I agree in some measure, these arguments can be easily grasped. Cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments can be summarized as: because "this", God exists. Cosmological arguments state that because the universe exists, so does God. Most philosophers with this argument agreed that the universe did not just appear and something had to create it. Teleological arguments follow the same premise whereas

This argument about Aquinas’s cosmological argument for the existence of god has been popular and his using of logic on his argument is much like other scientists. Aquinas believed that we can learn about our world and the important qualities of certain things in our world through making a statement or just examining. He would do the same in which to examine the physical world around him in order to gain his knowledge or understanding of the world. The word cosmological is used to describe the reflection of sense data and instance of watching. I found that Aquinas used five arguments about using ideas like, the first mover, first cause, sustainer, the cause of excellence, and the source of harmony.

Existence of God as a perfect being who has created the world has always been the subject of continuous debate for the scholar people and philosophers. During the history many different arguments have been proposed for the existence of God. Some of these arguments are based on science, some based on history and some based on philosophy. Two of the most important philosophical arguments in this matter are the ontological argument and cosmological argument. Each of these arguments tried to proof existence of God in different way.

There are some weak points in cosmological arguments, however. One major weakness is that there is no way to prove the existence of the universe has a cause. For example, David Hume believes that if we are capable of imagining a universe without cause, then it is possible that the universe could have begun without reason (Davies 50). Another argument states that the universe is infinite, and if that is the case, then every event has a predecessor. This would mean that there was no beginning of the universe (Davies 53).

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

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

The question I know of you have asked yourself at some point; Does God exist? Well this question opens the door to bigger questions of life: Where did we come from? Why are we here? Do we serve a true purpose? What happens after we die? The question of the existence of god is fundamental, but truly is something that has been misconstrued. Through the duration of this paper I will discuss two arguments on the existence of God, and the premises and versions that follow both of these arguments.

This is a valid argument because since the premises are true then its conclusion must be true as well. In order to understand the sophisticated argument you can use motion as an example. An object or thing cannot become in motion without an initial cause, and there had to be something that initially caused the thing that caused the object to become in motion. Since premises 4 states that there cannot be an infinite regress than God has to exist because since he is all-powerful he is an uncaused cause causing all the rest of the universe.

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.