William Lane Craig's Cosmological Argument

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.

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".

In this essay, I will be arguing against Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument that every motion can only be traced back to the creator of all motions and ultimately, the universe. First I will present Aquinas’ Cosmological argument regarding motion which directly concludes that a higher being, who is not dependent on the motion of any other thing or being, must exist to have caused the existence of the universe. I will also present opponents of this argument such as David Hume who argues that a “First Mover” might not even be needed to exist but rather that an infinite regress could be the explanation of the universe and that no explanation for what initiated this infinite chain of motions is required. Finally, I will disclose my personal opinion on the issue of how all of existence began. My standpoint will be much more inclined toward Hume’s argument against Aquinas but I will be presenting a new idea with a lot of scientific backup that neither of them could have possibly taken into account at the time.

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.

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.

What distinguishes the kalam cosmological argument from other forms of cosmological argument is that it rests on the idea that the universe has a beginning in time. Modal forms of the cosmological argument are consistent with the universe having an infinite past. With the kalam cosmological argument, however, it is precisely because the universe is thought to have a beginning in time that the existence of the universe is thought to stand in need of explanation. The argument has the following structure: (1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause

McCloskey is a very smart man, but he did not give evidence to why the world is imperfect without a God and why there is evil in the world. McCloskey marks three proofs including the teleological, cosmological, and the problem of evil. We can prove these arguments in the “Approaching the Question of God’s Existence” PointeCast presentation. This presentation helps us prove the existence of God.

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 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.

Throughout Meditation III of Descartes’s Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes illustrates the existence of a perfect God through his Cosmological Argument. I will begin with a description of Descartes’s Cosmological Argument, followed by an evaluation of the invalidity of the argument rooted in the limitations of the pre-containment principle. I will then offer various interpretations of the principle in an attempt to construct a premise that would allow Descartes to validly prove the existence of God. I will conclude by examining the potential of the Kalam Cosmological Argument in proving the existence of a Creator.

The Success of the Kalam Cosmological Argument in Establishing an Existence in God The kalam cosmological argument is an argument from the existence of the world or universe- to the existence of God, I think this is effective because the existence of the universe, such arguments claim, stands in need of explanation, the only adequate explanation, the arguments suggest, is that it was created by God. This is because it says that everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence and the universe has a beginning of it’s existence; so it must have a cause to exist, and this cause is God, therefore God exists.

Three reactions of the cosmological contention have been advertised. To start with, some say matter is everlasting and is not needing a "first cause." Second, some say if everything needs an answer, who is god?" Third, some say that regardless of the possibility that beyond any doubt some being created our universe to exist, this does not demonstrate the presence of the Christian God. All it shows is that there is some effective being that made the

Kalam Cosmological Argument for God’s existence comes in different bases. The first premises is “Whatever begins to exist has a cause. Therefore, “The universe began to exist.” Some people believed that the universe always existed. And The Big Bang interpreted the beginning of the universe.

The Kalam argument is the best argument to explain that God is the Creator of the universe. Some of the major expositors of this argument are Lane Craig, JP Moreland, Groothuis and many others. This cosmological argument is divided in three sections, the first premise states"Whatever begins has a cause" it denies the idea that nothing came out of nothing. In fact, nothing lacks all casual power, therefore material things should have a cause. Groothuis in his book shares that he does not conceive the idea that a musician appears in from of him from nowhere.