Cosmological Argument Essay

of the Cosmological Argument were developed by the world renowned philosophers Plato and Aristotle between the years 400 and 200 BC (Boeree). Medieval philosopher Saint Thomas Aquinas expanded upon their ideas in the late 13th Century when he wrote, “The Five Ways.” Since then the Cosmological Argument has become one of the most widely accepted and criticized arguments for the existence of God. My objective in this paper is to explain why the Cosmological Argument is a reasonable argument for the

believe in, each individual will see the Cosmological Argument differently. Overall, the Cosmological Argument argues that dependent beings (ourselves) came from an independent being. I will argue that an independent being does exist. A little background about Philosopher Samuel Clarke’s version of the Cosmological Argument, his version assumes that there are two sides and two views of reality. Depending on

Descartes Cosmological and Ontological arguments are well organized and are perceived as valid. However, these arguments may be found valid only if we follow the rules of Descartes premises through deductive reasoning. The soundness of Descartes Ontological and Cosmological arguments are questioned in this paper as I argue against Descartes axioms. Descartes bases his proofs of God on specific propositions and his own claims of knowledge. The lack of proof behind his premises is why I cannot except

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. To be specific, anything that comes into being is an effect, as a reaction to a cause. Thus, every cause has an effect, and no being can come without a cause, therefore the universe has a cause. Anything that

According to Aquinas, the existence of God can be proven in 5 ways, namely through the arguments of motion, efficient cause, possibility and necessity, gradation, and governance of the world. Motion is regarded by Aquinas as a thing observable. Man can prove that with his senses that things are in motion. It is necessary to believe that movers are put in motion by another mover. Because that is, nothing can be both potential motion and actual motion at the same time in the same respects for either

The Cosmological Argument “The simple and undeniable empirical premise that things of some sort exist, that the world is not simply an empty void” (Philosophical Problems). The argument asks why do things in the world exist. Everything known demand except for God himself. The world isn’t just an empty void but there is so much to figure out. Then there is a principle of sufficient reason is the answer to a general sort of question for any existing thing. The explanation of everything’s

Critique of Aquinas's Cosmological Argument Aquinas's 3rd way suggests that the world consists of contingent beings. As all contingent beings have a cause, namely another contingent being, there must have been a time when nothing existed, (unless contingent beings exist as a brute fact). Therefore, contingent beings could not have come into existence unless there is a necessary being which is non- contingent that caused them. Aquinas named this being God. The problem

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 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

“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