I think William Lane Craig made a strong argument when it came to a cosmological argument. He does have a point that there is an explanation of how the world came to be but there is more to it, such as dates and things like that. He says that the ultimate question in philosophy would be “why does anything exists”? He brings up that atheist think that the universe is eternal but he says there is reasons why the universe began. He says its obscured to think that its number of past events is infinite, which he says leads to self-contradictions.
I disagree with Paley because much of the reasoning 's he gives to his arguments are either false or can easily be refuted. I also disagree with Paley because even though he does follow through to his conclusion, the premises of illogically and indirectly saying "because I say so", when he cannot find a logical answer, is not a valid argument. Much of Paley 's argument to prove the existence of a creator of the universe, or God, ignores many counter-arguments. When Paley begins to explain there being a purpose and function of the watch, which is clearly to tell time, he is also not able to identify as to what the exact purpose and function of the universe is. Paley leaves this issue with the renowned “because I said so”, leaving readers to feel as though they have no choice but to agree.
According to William Paley’s argument in “The Teleological Argument" everything was created for a specific purpose. Paley uses the watch and mentions its maker to compare the creation of the world and God. In order to explain why certain objects have a specific design and purpose, Paley uses the watch to develop this idea. According to Paley, the watch has many intricate parts which contribute not only to the overall design but to the overall function of the watch. This can be compared to God and how he created each individual to serve a purpose.
Anselm’s reasoning was that, if a being existed only in the mind but not in reality, then a greater being was conceivable (a being which exists both in the mind and in reality). Since God is an infinitely great being, therefore, God must exist. Anselm logically proved that God existed by our understanding aside from reality and our understanding combined with reality. Another argument is the cosmological arguments. It begins by examining some empirical or metaphysical fact of the universe, from which it then follows that something outside the universe must have caused it to exist.
84). Thus if something being unable to cause itself means there is a first cause, which must necessarily be God that causes the universe. Goldstein’s argument instead argues that since the universe cannot cause itself (Premise 4), something outside universe must have caused the universe to exist. Goldstein’s framework is far weaker, particularly after her 4th premise, as it falls into a range of fallacies and presumptions. Indeed Goldstein’s framing reads as a simplification of the cosmological argument designed to be easier to criticised.
The Cosmological Argument is an a priori argument, seeking to establish the existence of a self-existent being through the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR), in order to then attempt to prove that that self-existent being is the “theist God” (48). In the Cosmological Argument, philosophers argued that the world’s foundation is based on the implicit relationship we have with the world and one another. Their arguments can be epitomized below: (a) Every being (that exists or ever did exist) is either a dependent being or a self-existent being. (b) Not every being can be a dependent being.
Of the three main styles of arguments for the existence of God – the cosmological, the teleological, and the ontological – the teleological is probably the second strongest of these arguments. The teleological argument is also the only one of these arguments that reasons to its conclusion inductively. This means that, unlike the cosmological and ontological arguments, the acceptance of the premises of the teleological argument does not commit you to the acceptance of its conclusion. It only commits you to a judgement about the probability of the conclusion. The style of reasoning typically adopted by this method is one that starts from a posteriori observations about our reality, and then reasons a priori – typically through analogy – to the
The Cosmological Argument argues that the universe had to have been created by something greater, and more powerful than itself, such as God. This argument contends that the first cause of anything has no cause itself. The Teleological Argument asserts that the complex design of the world proves an intelligent, powerful creator. The Moral Argument cites God’s existence as the cause of morality. This argument asserts that humans follow moral laws that must have been created by a law giver.
Personally, I believe the conclusion of the transcendental argument for the existence of God. In my opinion, Immanuel Kant is more credible because he created the argument and supported it using many examples, whereas Michael Martin only found errors with the TAG. I agree with Kant because this theory is a cause and effect, meaning that God’s existence caused human reason. In Critique of Pure Reason, Kant states that logic originates from an individual’s belief in God. If someone believes that God created the world, then He is the reason why the laws of logic exist.
The cosmological argument is a philosophical argument which is in favour of the existence of God. It is both a posteriori and inductive argument. This means that the argument is based on the evidence in the world around and the argument itself can only persuade the audience reading it as it is only a inductive argument not a deductive argument which means that not all of the facts said in the argument may not be true. In the case of the cosmological argument, the argument has been formed to persuade us of the existence of God. The argument is also based on the concept of causation which is also known as the law of cause and effect
Faith is the root of many actions and thereby reactions in our society, and world today. These religious practices must go through many trials and questionings from the always cynical, ever searching individuals. Due to the questioning of God’s existence, St. Thomas Aquinas and Anselm devised three arguments as was of explanation for His existence. Ontological, cosmological and teleological arguments are put forth to hopefully one day prove God’s existence. We are a people who crave for simplicity, there is nothing simple about the devout in their faith, we will look to find simpler explanations, or Ockham’s razor, for the three arguments put forth by Aquinas and Anselm.
Paley simply responds to this by saying that something doesn’t have to perfect to show that there was a designer. Another problem with this argument is that things in a watch (or a universe) contain different parts that look like they have no function, so these parts are somewhat proof that he universe wasn’t designed. Paley replies to this by saying that just because we do not know the function of something it doesn’t mean that it has no function, Paley looks at different parts of the watch (or universe) and from this he decides that it must have been
According to Samuel Clark’s argument, things exist the way they are in order to show the existence of God. All things need an explanation for their existence according to Aristotle. For instance, why the earth is spherical, why different places experience different climatic patters, why different geographical areas have different time zones and why do creatures that are in found in different places have features that enable them survive in such conditions. These considerations lead to a belief that there must be a cause for the universe (Rowe 67). At the same time, this cause needs to be extremely perfect for the universe to align itself in its current manner.
Argument for the existence of god is being proposed in several ways. Some based on science while some are about personal experience and some on philosophical arguments such as ontological arguments, first cause arguments, arguments based on deign, moral arguments. Each of these support conception. Ontological argument say that if you inculcate the idea of god , we can see him . There is a saying that “Nothing comes from Nothing but something comes from something”.