Cosmological Argument Analysis

The point is that just because we don’t have an explanation other than God for existence at the moment; that does not mean that there isn’t one. Even if millions of years from now we haven’t explained anything further, all that would prove is that our material knowledge of the Universe is not

And, if one believes that god is omnipotent, then this question is irrelevant because this question is a contradiction. Because, if gods omnipotent then there is no stone too heavy for him to lift. Thus, depending upon what one believes about god, the answer to this paradox is different. All in all, the paradox of the stone is an interesting though experiment in debating gods omnipotence. The roots to Aquinas were key in the creation of this argument.

In this case, it is called God. Aquinas identified a series of cause as well as effects in the universe. He however rejected the idea of an idea of infinite series of causes as he believed that there must have been a first uncaused cause. This first uncaused cause would have started the change of other causes that then would have resulted in all events happening. This first cause was

Some of the greatest opponents to the cosmological argument include Hume, Kant and Russell. Hume questions the notion of causation within his philosophical work. In “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion,” assumptions and speculations of how the world was founded are classified as not true empirical evidence. Hume believed that although everything in the universe had a cause we could not explain how the universe was caused. (Hume, 1779).

Moreover, it violates the first law of thermodynamics, which states that matter or energy cannot be created or destroyed. The big bang does not explain why it took place, nor how the universe was created. However, it can be argued that the big bang theory addresses the evolution of the universe, not its creation. The big bang is simply a theory. This means, that it cannot be proven, but it can be disproven.

However, his claims can be refuted on the basis that, when one says that “no greater God can be conceived”, then one would only be talking about God. The word God is what you call a being that is above all understanding. Secondly, the lack of complete understanding of a God that is greater than any other is the basis of Anselm’s argument. In other words, one needs not understand how it is that no other greater God exists, because it is not possible to do that. It is the concept of understanding that such a being exists that is important.

This premise only makes sense because we’ve applied it to our ordinary lives. As Hume argues, the only way to ensure an everyday principle like causality still works in vastly different conditions is to have direct experience of it, which we cannot so the theory is invalid. Secondly, this argument functions on the basis of a priori judgments where philosophers attempt to reveal God through rational syllogism alone. The argument does not provide any validating evidence which weakens the

Additionally, Descartes insisted that “that there is a vast difference between mind and body, in respect that body, from its nature, is always divisible, and that mind is entirely indivisible” (Descartes 3). This is simply says that body can be distinguish as parts but, mind is attached to the nature. This can lead to a question by the people who do not support this principle that if it is, and then can mind exist without the body? Clearly, the question is about the existence of the mind in the absence of

Hume’s have stated that Aquinas’s design argument should not be based on religion and the intelligent designer lacks the intellectual capability to design a complex universe. These two objections lacks validity and is very subjective. Hume’s provides no reliable source to prove his claim. Aquinas’s presents a valid argument that the world is governed by God. First, he used philosophical reasoning suggesting that everything in the universe operate and moves for an end.

Craig’s main argument is against the possibility of existence of actual infinities he believes there is always a cause of existence. Craig defends the Kalam by using two arguments. Argument one is as follows: Whatever begins to exist has a cause of existence; the universe began to exist; therefore: the universe has a cause. Argument two addresses the cause of existence more specifically and is as follows: Whatever begins to exist has a cause, the universe has a cause; if the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal creator of the universe exists. The whole universe is caused