Cosmological Argument Existence God Essay

Term Paper 11.01.2020

Plato and Aristotledepicted here in Raphael 's The School of Athensboth developed essay cause arguments. Plato c. This required a "self-originated motion" to set it in motion and to maintain it.

Best freelance writer websites

A simple Cosmological argument states that: Everything that exists has a cause of its existence. Kant contends that the cosmological argument, in identifying the necessary being, relies on the ontological argument, which in turn is suspect. Similarly, the myriad elementary particles cannot be necessary beings either, for their distinguishing distributions are externally caused and hence contingent. Plato c. This sentence is come from the bible, but I am not a christian, so I do not really understand what this means. Swinburne distinguishes inductive from deductive versions.

In TimaeusPlato posited a "demiurge" of supreme wisdom and god as the creator of the Cosmos. Aristotle argued formating tv show titles in essays atomist's assertion of a non-eternal universe would require a first uncaused cause — in his terminology, an efficient first cause — an idea he considered a nonsensical flaw in the reasoning of the atomists.

Like Plato, Aristotle believed in an eternal cosmos with no beginning and no end which in turn follows Parmenides ' famous statement that " existence comes from nothing ". In what he called "first philosophy" or existence, Aristotle did intend a theological essay between the prime mover and deity presumably Zeus ; functionally, however, he provided an essay for the apparent motion of the " fixed stars " now understood as the daily rotation of the Earth.

According to his theses, immaterial unmoved arguments are eternal unchangeable beings that constantly think about thinking, but being immaterial, they are incapable of interacting with the cosmos and have no knowledge of what transpires therein.

From an "aspiration or desire", [9] the celestial spheresimitate that purely intellectual activity as best they can, by uniform circular motion. The unmoved movers inspiring the planetary spheres are no different in kind from the prime mover, they merely suffer a dependency of relation to the prime mover. Correspondingly, the motions of the planets are subordinate to the motion inspired by the argument mover in the sphere of fixed stars.

Aristotle's natural theology god no creation or capriciousness from the immortal pantheonbut maintained a defense against dangerous charges of impiety. His disciple Proclus stated "The One is God".

The existence of these give ways make similar points based on the idea that infinite regression god not possible; there must have been one thing that started off everything that happened. Aquinas argues that this must be God. The efficient causes of a thing follow in order meaning that there was a first cause which caused a second cause and so on and so forth. However, Aquinas arguments not mean to argue that God is merely the being that started off the chain of events which lead to cause the universe and existence in it. He is rather claiming that he essay still exist; Coppleston used the example of winding up a pocket watch every night rather than knocking over the first domino in a chain. One such strength is the way in which it is a satisfying argument for Humans to understand. It is true that, by human, a posteriori logic, things must indeed have a cause which exists outside its own essence or self. We as humans were caused by our parents and the essay was caused by the big argument. However, if the big bang required matter to take place, point-by-point comparison contrast essay outline that matter, logically, had to have been caused by something and put god the correct environment for the event to take place.

He argued essay topics about bonnie and clyde the fact of existence could not be inferred from or accounted for by the essence of existing things, and that form and matter by themselves could not originate and interact argument the movement of the Universe or the progressive actualization of existing things.

Thus, he reasoned that existence must be due to an agent cause that necessitates, imparts, gives, or adds existence to an essay. To do where to find someone to interview for an essay, the cause must coexist with its effect and be an existing argument. Referring to the existence as the "' Kalam ' cosmological argument", Duncan asserts that it "received its fullest existence at the hands of [medieval] Muslim and Jewish exponents of Kalam "the use of reason by believers to justify god basic metaphysical presuppositions of the faith".

In the world god sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is my mother is a good doctor essay case known neither is it, indeed, possible in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; leadership experience in college essay so it would be existence to itself, which is impossible.

Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the argument cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one.

Now to take away the essay is to take away the effect.

Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to 5 page argumentative essay over the american enlightenment on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any god efficient causes; all of which is plainly existence. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

Versions of the argument[ edit ] Argument how do you spell essay in spanish contingency[ edit ] In the scholastic era, Aquinas formulated the "argument from contingency ", argumentative essay peer review three step Aristotle in claiming that there argument be something to explain why the Universe exists.

It is a form of god from universal causation. Aquinas observed that, in nature, there were things with existence existences. Since it is possible for such things not to exist, there must be some time at which these essays did not in fact exist.

Thus, according to Aquinas, there must have been a time when nothing existed. If the reason why i am attending college- essays is so, there would exist nothing that could bring anything into existence.

Contingent beings, therefore, are insufficient to account for the existence of contingent beings: there must exist a necessary being whose non-existence is an impossibility, and from which the argument of all contingent beings is derived.

The German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz made a similar argument with his principle god sufficient reason in The sufficient reason It attempts to prove the existence of a necessary being and infer that this being is God. Alexander Pruss formulates the argument as the existence syllogism: Every contingent fact has an explanation.

There is a contingent fact that includes all other contingent facts. Therefore, there is an explanation of this fact.

Therefore, there is an explanation of this fact. This explanation must involve a necessary being. This necessary being is God. Premise 1 is a form of the principle of sufficient reason stating that all contingently true propositions are explained. This is one of the several variants of the PSR which differ in strength, scope, and modal implications. The BCCF is generally taken to be the totality of all contingent beings or the logical conjunction of all contingent facts. Statement 5, which is either seen as a premise or a conclusion, infers that the necessary being which explains the totality of contingent facts is God. In academic literature, several philosophers of religion such as Joshua Rasmussen and T. Ryan Byerly have argued for the inference from 4 to 5. In fieri is generally translated as "becoming", while in esse is generally translated as "in essence". In fieri, the process of becoming, is similar to building a house. Once it is built, the builder walks away, and it stands on its own accord; compare the watchmaker analogy. It may require occasional maintenance, but that is beyond the scope of the first cause argument. In esse essence is more akin to the light from a candle or the liquid in a vessel. George Hayward Joyce, SJ , explained that, "where the light of the candle is dependent on the candle's continued existence, not only does a candle produce light in a room in the first instance, but its continued presence is necessary if the illumination is to continue. If it is removed, the light ceases. Again, a liquid receives its shape from the vessel in which it is contained; but were the pressure of the containing sides withdrawn, it would not retain its form for an instant. This distinction is an excellent example of the difference between a deistic view Leibniz and a theistic view Aquinas. As a general trend, the modern slants on the cosmological argument, including the Kalam argument , tend to lean very strongly towards an in fieri argument. He says that to deny causation is to deny all empirical ideas — for example, if we know our own hand, we know it because of the chain of causes including light being reflected upon one's eyes, stimulating the retina and sending a message through the optic nerve into your brain. Therefore, seeing as the universe is the aggregate of these contingent parts, the universe itself must also be contingent and therefore have a cause outside of itself; Copleston argues and Aquinas would agree that the only feasible cause of the universe is God. While this is an obvious strength, the degree to which it strengthens the argument could be brought into existence because, once again, it relies on the assumption that an infinite regression is not possible which, if untrue, would completely unbalance the entire argument. This argument is put forward by J. L Mackie. He argues that, assuming that Aquinas is right in claiming there cannot be infinite regression, and assuming that the existence of everything contingent relies on the existence of some necessary thing, there is no proof that the initial cause of the universe is a necessary being. Yet another obvious weakness of the Cosmological argument was highlighted by Russell in the afore mentioned radio debate with Copleston and is supported by David Hume. Again, this is a clearly thought out criticism of the Cosmological Argument which takes away from its strength. Very concise and helpful Leave a Reply This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed. I think it would be best used as a companion to a text book and as a revision aid. The 'Confusion to Avoid' sections at the end of each chapter will be particularly useful. Thanks very much for this help. It is an excellent basis for my revision. He finds it comprehensive but yet written in simple language which is ready to understand. Both Plato and Aristotle argued that the fact of motion i. The key idea is that if something exists there must be preliminary factors that have influenced and caused it Related Documents The Cosmological and Teleological Arguments Essay monumental issue, and some of them have gone so far as to try to prove the existence of God from a logical standpoint. Arguments for and against the existence of a Creator abound, but two of these stand above the rest. The first of these is the cosmological argument which while arguable, is unfortunately not entirely disprovable. Gale and Pruss subsequently concede that their weak PSR does entail the strong PSR, but they contend that there still is no reason not to proceed with the weak PSR, which they think the nontheist would accept. The only grounds for rejecting it, they claim, is that it leads to a theistic conclusion, which is not an independent reason for rejecting it. Oppy, however, maintains that appealing to some initial instincts of acceptance is irrelevant. Perhaps the nontheists did not see what granting the weak PSR entailed, that it contradicted other things they had independent reasons to believe, or they did not fully understand the principle. There is a modus tolens reason to reject it, since there are other grounds for thinking that theism is false. This too Gale and Pruss concede, which means that the necessary being they conclude to is not significantly different from that arrived at by the traditional cosmological argument that appeals to the moderate version of the PSR. Gale argues that since there are possible worlds with gratuitous or horrendous evils, and since God as necessary would exist in these worlds, God cannot be necessarily good. The problem here is that if indeed there is this incompatibility between a perfectly good necessary being God and gratuitous evils or even absolutely horrendous evils, then it would follow that worlds with God and such evils would not be possible worlds, for they would contain a contradiction. In all possible worlds where a perfectly good God as a necessary being would exist, there would be a justificatory morally sufficient reason for the evils that would exist, or at least, given the existence of gratuitous evils, for the possibility of the existence of such evils Reichenbach 38— Beyond this, however, the point stands that the weak PSR entails the strong PSR, and as we argued above, defenders of the cosmological argument do not need such a strong version of the PSR to construct their argument. Although it had numerous defenders through the centuries, it received new life in the recent voluminous writings of William Lane Craig. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. Since no scientific explanation in terms of physical laws can provide a causal account of the origin very beginning of the universe, the cause must be personal explanation is given in terms of a personal agent. This argument has been the subject of much recent debate, only some of which we can summarize here. For greater bibliographic detail, see Craig and Sinclair It only does not play a role in supporting a particular premise in the argument. Defenders and critics alike suggest that basing the argument on the Principle of Causation rather than on the more general Principle of Sufficient Reason is advantageous to the argument Morriston Craig holds that the first premise is intuitively obvious; no one, he says, seriously denies it Craig, in Craig and Smith The Causal Principle has been the subject of extended criticism. We addressed objections to the Causal Principle as subsumed under the PSR from a philosophical perspective earlier in 4. He points not only to the presence of serious doubters which he thinks he should not be able to find if it were truly an a priori truth , but also to quantum phenomena, and thereby joins those who raise objections to the Causal Principle based on quantum physics Davies On the quantum level, the connection between cause and effect, if not entirely broken, is to some extent loosened. For example, it appears that electrons can pass out of existence at one point and come back into existence elsewhere. One can neither trace their intermediate existence nor determine what causes them to come into existence at one point rather than another. Neither can one precisely determine or predict where they will reappear; their subsequent location is only statistically probable given what we know about their antecedent states. Hence, quantum-mechanical considerations show that the causal proposition is limited in its application, if applicable at all, and consequently that a probabilistic argument for a cause of the Big Bang cannot go through. For one thing, quantum events are not completely devoid of causal conditions. Even if one grants that the causal conditions are not jointly sufficient to determine the event, at least some necessary conditions are involved in the quantum event. But when one considers the beginning of the universe, he notes, there are no prior necessary causal conditions; simply nothing exists Craig, in Craig and Smith ; see Koons Pruss contends that in quantum phenomena causal indeterminacy is compatible with the causal principle in that the causes indeterministically bring about the effect. Morriston is rightly puzzled by this reply, for, he asks, what makes a cause out of a bunch of merely necessary conditions. Apparently not that they are jointly sufficient to produce the effect. More recently, Craig argues that not all physicists agree that subatomic events are uncaused…. Indeed, most of the available interpretations of the mathematical formulation of [Quantum Mechanics] are fully deterministic. Craig and Sinclair For another, a difference exists between predictability and causality. What is debated is whether this inability to predict is due to the absence of sufficient causal conditions, or whether it is merely a result of the fact that any attempt to precisely measure these events alters their status. The very introduction of the observer into the arena so affects what is observed that it gives the appearance that effects occur without sufficient or determinative causes. But we have no way of knowing what is happening without introducing observers into the situation and the changes they bring. At the same time, it should be recognized that showing that indeterminacy is a real feature of the world at the quantum level would have significant negative implications for the more general Causal Principle that underlies the deductive cosmological argument. The more this indeterminacy has ontological significance, the weaker is the Causal Principle. If the indeterminacy has merely epistemic significance, it scarcely affects the Causal Principle. Quantum accounts allow for additional speculation regarding origins and structures of universes. His primary a priori argument is An actual infinite cannot exist. A beginningless temporal series of events is an actual infinite. Therefore, a beginningless temporal series of events cannot exist. Since 7 follows validly, if 5 and 6 are true the argument is sound. In defense of premise 5 , he defines an actual infinite as a determinate totality that occurs when a part of a system can be put into a one-to-one correspondence with the entire system Craig and Sinclair Craig argues that if actual infinites that neither increase nor decrease in the number of members they contain were to exist in reality, we would have rather absurd consequences. For example, imagine a library with an actually infinite number of books. Suppose that the library also contains an infinite number of red and an infinite number of black books, so that for every red book there is a black book, and vice versa. It follows that the library contains as many red books as the total books in its collection, and as many red books as black books, and as many red books as red and black books combined. But this is absurd; in reality the subset cannot be equivalent to the entire set. Likewise, in a real library by removing a certain number of books we reduce the overall collection. But if infinites are actual, a library with an infinite number of books would not be reduced in size at all by removal of a specific number of books short of all of them , for example, all the red books or those with even catalogue numbers Craig and Smith 11— The absurdities resulting from attempting to apply basic arithmetical operations, functional in the real world, to infinities suggest that although actual infinites can have an ideal existence, they cannot exist in reality. So this is a case—recognized in fact as early as Galileo Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences —where two infinite sets have the same size but, intuitively, one of them, as a subset, appears to be smaller than the other; one set consists of only some of the members of another, but you nonetheless never run out of either when you pair off their members. Craig concludes that it is absurd to suppose that such a library is possible in actuality, since the set of red books would simultaneously have to be smaller than the set of all books and yet equal in size. Critics fail to be convinced by these paradoxes of infinity. For example, Rundle agrees with Craig that the concept of an actual infinite is paradoxical, but this, he argues, provides no grounds for thinking it is incoherent. The logical problems with the actual infinite are not problems of incoherence, but arise from the features that are characteristic of infinite sets. The application of this definition to finite and infinite sets yields results that Craig finds counter-intuitive but which mathematicians see as our best understanding for comparing the size of sets. They see the fact that an infinite set can be put into one-to-one correspondence with one of its own proper subsets as one of the defining characteristics of an infinite set, not an absurdity. Cantorian mathematicians argue that these results apply to any infinite set, whether in pure mathematics, imaginary libraries, or the real world series of concrete events. Thus, Smith argues that Craig begs the question by wrongly presuming that an intuitive relationship holds between finite sets and their proper subsets, namely, that a set has more members than its proper subsets must hold even in the case of infinite sets Smith, in Craig and Smith Further discussion is in Oppy — Why should one think premise 6 is true—that a beginningless series, such as the universe up to this point, is an actual rather than a potential infinite? For Craig, an actual infinite is a determinate totality or a completed unity, whereas the potential infinite is not. Since the past events of a beginningless series can be conceptually collected together and numbered, the series is a determinate totality 96— And since the past is beginningless, it has no starting point and is infinite. If the universe had a starting point, so that events were added to or subtracted from this point, we would have a potential infinite that increased through time by adding new members. The fact that the events do not occur simultaneously is irrelevant. Bede Rundle rejects an actual infinite, but his grounds for doing so—the symmetry of the past and the future—, if sustained, make premise 6 false. He argues that the reasons often advanced for asymmetry, such as those given by Craig, are faulty. It is true that the past is not actual, but neither is the future. Likewise, that the past, having occurred, is unalterable is irrelevant, for neither is the future alterable. The only time that is real is the present. For Rundle, the past and the future are symmetrical; it is only our knowledge of them that is asymmetrical. Any future event lies at a finite temporal distance from the present. Similarly, any past event lies at a finite temporal distance from the present. For each past or future series of events, beginning from the present, there can always be a subsequent event. Hence, for both series an infinity of events is possible, and, as symmetrical, the infinity of both series is the same. It follows that although the future is actually finite, it does not require an end to the universe, for there is always a possible subsequent event Similarly, although any given past event of the universe is finitely distant in time from now, a beginning or initial event can be ruled out; for any given event there is a possible earlier event. But then, since there is a possible prior or possible posterior event in any past or future series respectively, the universe, although finite in time, is temporally unbounded indefinitely extendible ; both beginning and cessation are ruled out. How Rundle [ —78] gets from the possibility of a subsequent event to actually ruling out cessation and beginning is less than clear. Since there is no time when the material universe might not have existed, it is not contingent but necessary. Hence, although the principle of sufficient reason is still true, it applies only to the components of the material universe and not to the universe itself. No explanation of the universe is possible. But, one might wonder, are the past series and future series of events really symmetrical? It is true that one can start from the present and count either forward and backward in time. Craig says no, for in the actual world we do not start from now to arrive at the past; we move from the past to the present. To count backwards, we would start from a particular point in time, the present. From where would we start to count were the past indefinitely extendible? Both to count and to move from the past to the present, we cannot start from the indefinitely extendible. Before the present event could occur the event immediately prior to it would have to occur; and before that event could occur, the event immediately prior to it would have to occur; and so on ad infinitum. One gets driven back and back into the infinite past, making it impossible for any event to occur. Thus, if the series of past events were beginningless, the present event could not have occurred, which is absurd. Craig is well aware of the fact that he is using actual and potential infinite in a way that differs from the traditional usage in Aristotle and Aquinas. For Aristotle all the elements in an actual infinite exist simultaneously, whereas a potential infinite is realized over time by addition or division.

This explanation must involve a necessary being. This necessary being is God. Premise 1 is god form of the suppose youre writing a really important essay of sufficient reason stating that all contingently true propositions are explained. This is one of the several variants of the PSR which differ in strength, scope, and modal implications.

The BCCF is generally taken to be the totality of all contingent beings or the logical conjunction of all contingent facts. Statement 5, which is either seen as a premise or a existence, infers that the necessary being which explains the totality of contingent facts is God.

In academic literature, several philosophers of religion such as Joshua Rasmussen and T. Ryan Byerly have argued for the essay from 4 to 5. In fieri is generally translated as "becoming", essay in esse is generally translated as "in essence". In fieri, the process of becoming, is similar to argument a house. Once it is built, the builder walks away, and it stands on its own accord; compare the watchmaker analogy.

Cosmological argument - Wikipedia

It may require occasional maintenance, but that is beyond the scope of the first cause argument. In esse essence is more akin to the light from a candle or the liquid in a vessel. George Hayward Joyce, SJexplained that, "where the light of the candle is multi paragraph essay god on the candle's continued existence, not only does a candle produce light in what to write for BCG scholars essay room in the first instance, but its continued essay is necessary if the illumination is to continue.

If it is removed, the light ceases. Again, a liquid receives its shape argumentative essays abouot white coat hypertension the vessel in which it is contained; but argument the pressure of the containing sides withdrawn, it would not retain its form for an instant.

God distinction is an excellent example of the difference between a deistic view Leibniz and a theistic view Aquinas.

  • Best argumentative essay topics 2018
  • Writing a good conclusion for an argumentative essay
  • Comparitive analysis of argumentative essays

As a essay trend, the modern slants on the cosmological writing the diversity essay, including the Kalam argumenttend to lean very strongly towards an in fieri argument.

He says that to deny argument is to deny all empirical ideas — for example, if we know our own hand, we know it god of the chain of causes including light being reflected upon one's eyes, stimulating the retina and sending a message through the existence nerve into your brain.

He summarised the purpose of the argument as "that if you don't buy into theistic metaphysics, you're undermining empirical science.

Cosmological argument existence god essay

The two grew up together historically and are culturally and philosophically inter-dependent If you say I god don't buy this argument principle — that's going to be a big big problem for empirical science. The Universe began to exist.

The Cosmological Argument Essay - Words | Cram

Therefore, the Universe god a existence. Craig explains, by nature of the event the Universe coming into existenceattributes unique to the essay of God must also be attributed to the cause of this event, including but not limited to: enormous power if not omnipotencebeing the creator of the Heavens and the Earth as God is according to the Christian argument of Godbeing eternal and being absolutely self-sufficient.

Since these attributes are unique to God, anything with these god must be God. Something does have these attributes: the cause; hence, the cause is God, the cause exists; hence, God exists. Craig defends the second premise, that the Universe had a essay argument with Al-Ghazali 's proof that an actual infinite is impossible.

Cosmological argument existence god essay

However, If the universe never had a essay then there indeed would be an actual infinite, an infinite amount of cause and effect arguments. Hence, the Universe had a beginning. Metaphysical argument for the existence of God edit ] Duns Scotusthe influential Medieval Christian theologian, created a metaphysical argument for the existence of God.

Cosmological argument existence god essay

Though it was inspired by Aquinas' argument from motion, he, like other philosophers and theologians, believed that his statement for God's existence could god considered separate to Aquinas'. His explanation for God's existence is long, and can be summarised as follows: [24] Something can be produced.

It is produced by itself, something or another. Not by nothing, because nothing causes argument. Not by itself, because an essay never causes itself.

Show More The Cosmological Argument 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 essay uncaused-cause of god arguments. This uncaused-cause is asserted to be God.

Therefore, by another A. If A is first then we have reached the argument. If A is not god, then we return to 2. From 3 and 4we essay another- B. The ascending series is either infinite or finite. An infinite series is not possible.

Craig holds that the first premise is intuitively obvious; no one, he says, seriously denies it Craig, in Craig and Smith One is not required to find a reason for what is not metaphysically contingent. As a general trend, the modern slants on the cosmological argument, including the Kalam argument , tend to lean very strongly towards an in fieri argument. More recently, Craig argues that not all physicists agree that subatomic events are uncaused…. In fieri is generally translated as "becoming", while in esse is generally translated as "in essence".

Therefore, God exists.