The Cosmological Argument claims that because everything has a cause and the universe doesn’t; then God must exist to have created the universe. This leaves God as uncaused cause, and a creator of all. But the cosmological argument fails, simply due to the fact that if God is an uncaused cause, then why can’t the universe be the same? And if the universe can be an uncaused cause, then why do we need God? The Cosmological Argument leaves us hanging here, with no sufficient answer.
The Cosmological argument, when summarised, goes like this: everything in the world has a cause, but we haven’t found one for the universe. Therefore, the cause of it must be God. But what caused God? Nothing. God was necessary for the world to be created, and thus was created from nothing. He is the
…show more content…
It claims that there must be an uncaused cause, an unmoved mover. If this is the case, why does it have to be God? Why a humanoid being, with thoughts and feelings? Why is it all-knowing and all loving? Why does it have to be humanoid in the first place? Why can’t the universe itself be the uncaused cause? Or the unmoved mover? The argument also contradicts itself – if nothing can be uncaused (the universe) then neither can this first cause, God. If God can be uncaused, then so can the universe.
One answer to this is a twist on the Cosmological Argument, the Kalam Cosmological Argument. This theory understands the problems and hypocrisy of the original argument and looks at it this way instead: everything that has a beginning in time has a cause of existence. Most scientists agree that the universe has a beginning in time – some say it is the big bang – and thus must have been caused by something.
This something would then be God. This is the closest the argument gets to proving the existence of God. If everything that has a beginning requires a cause, then something would have to be necessary and infinite in order to create our
Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence 2. The universe began to exist 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of existence His defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument revolves mostly around the second premise. This is mostly due to him finding the first premise as intuitively obvious, where he claims that “no one, seriously denies it”. From experience, we find that physical objects do not come into existence without causes.
I have to admit that Zimmerman’s talk was hard at times for me to comprehend. I would love feedback if I understood his divine argument wrong, because I have had a few discussions about it with my peers and many took away different views from his final argument for a divine being, and in this paper I will explain how I understood his final argument. To come upon the divine being of God, he had to eliminate all the other contingent and necessary options believed by other philosophers and scientists through reasoning. He explained how it wasn’t possible for their to be no answer for the cosmos, nor were any of the contingent explanations of science, philosophy, or an infinite past made any sense.
Answers to Document B, Eric Farrow: 1. God is the creator of the universe and all things. Because He created time, He is unchanging. He is the same today, yesterday, 4000 years ago, and 4000 years into the future. God is not surprised by history or human actions.
It is the whole secret to their power- that it was self-sufficient, self-motivated, self-generated. A first cause, a fount of energy, a life force, a Prime Mover. The creator served nothing and no one. He lived for himself. And only by living for himself was he able to achieve the things which are the glory of mankind.
It basically just throws God in without even talking about him. The argument does a great job at showing that there is a creator, but does nothing to explain about God. Once you believe that there is a designer then it opens up many doors by diving into the topic of God and maybe doing research. What makes more sense to believe in God is actually trying to learn about God. If you learn about the Judeo-Christian God, you’ll find out that he wants to be known.
The objection addressed the validity of the argument which had the premise 1, nothing is the efficient cause of itself except God and premise 2, a chain of causes cannot be infinite. The argument thus concludes there must be a first cause. This conclusion agrees with my thesis that Saint Thomas Aquinas’s argument formulated in the second way leads to a valid argument, which concludes that there must be a first cause and that God
The fact that these people are unaware of is that God took the initiative and acted first as seen in Genesis 1:1, where it states ” In the beginning God….” This clearly shows that God in His omnipotence took time to create you, me, and everything in existence today. It is also stated in Genesis 1, God formed us in His image and breathed into us the breathe of “LIFE”; therefore a part of the Almighty is in the fibers of our being. Seeing that part of Him was separated, He sent Jesus Christ to die for our sins to redeem the relationship that once was.
The cosmological argument looks to the world to prove God’s existence rather than pure definitions. The proponent of the cosmological argument was St. Thomas Aquinas, a theologian in the eleventh century CE (Solomon). He proposed that everything that exists must have a cause, and that the cause was God (Aquinas). Aquinas’ first point was based off of motion, that nothing can be both the mover and moved. An item sitting in place has the potential to be moving, but cannot move unless something that is already moving imparts motion to it
Dominican philosopher and theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas, created the “Five Ways” of God’s existence – motion, causation, contingency, gradations, intelligence of design – in which the first two are cosmological arguments. Aquinas’s argument from motion states that it’s obvious some things in the universe are moving, and if they’re moving, something else must have caused them to move, and something else must have caused that to move… and so on. However, the pattern of movements can’t go on forever since there wouldn’t be that one thing that started the whole series. Therefore, there must be an “initial mover, an extraordinary being that started the universe moving but is not itself moved by anything else – and this being we call God,” (Vaughn, Lewis. Pg. 65).
In John Locke’s, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke develops an argument for the existence of God. In the the following paper, I shall first reconstruct Lockes’ argument for his claim of God’s existence. I shall then identify what I take to be the weakest premise of the argument and explain why I find it in need of justification. The following is a reconstruction of Lockes’ argument: 1) Man has a clear perception of his own being 2)
The traditional claim of all Cosmological Arguments is defined as “something outside the universe is responsible to explain the existence of the universe” (PowerPoint 380). In the “causal argument,” or the First Cause Argument on the cosmological argument, “something” outside of the universe that is supposed to inform us about the existence of the universe is argued to be explained as God. As the first cause argument goes into depth and with the help of Thomas Aquinas, it is easy to see how God is responsible for explaining the existence of the universe around us. Within the first cause argument on the cosmological argument the following premises and conclusions are discussed: Premise 1: There exists things that are caused. Meaning that
If god doesn’t cause my existence, then I am caused by myself, my parents or a lesser cause. There is no infinite regression, so I my existence isn’t caused by my parents or lesser cause, Therefore, God is the cause of my existence (AD 51). As well I am not God, If I created
We can explain the origin of the universe and the reason why it is like this if we believe in god. Existence of being greater than any of us and the rules for over all creation. It is not necessary for physical existence of god. We can say that god exists by thinking about god. As we know that for sided god triangle triangle is impossible, in the same manner non-existence of god is also impossible.
So the first cause argument proves that God does not exist assuming the first cause argument is sound then there must be some other cause because it is not God. In summary the notion of omnipotent is a miss-name because it implies the potency, power, causality when in fact all that it does is imply logical entailment, it implies that if it wills something you can deduce from the statement that something exists, you do not need a causal step, it is a logical deduction and therefore the first cause argument argues from causes in the world
He says that the universe is the most amazing achievement imaginable. The merit or value of an achievement is the product of its intrinsic quality and ability of its creator. If we think about God who has no hands even he created universe then