Ockham's Razor And Cosmological Argument

There have been an innumerable amount of arguments for the existence of God for hundreds of years. Some have become much more popular due to their merit, and their ability to stay relevant through changing times. Two arguments in particular that have been discussed for a very long time are the ontological and cosmological arguments. Each were proposed in the period of the high middle ages by members of the Roman Catholic Church. They each have been used extensively by many since their introduction. However, one of the arguments is superior ant that is the ontological argument. The Ontological argument is the stronger of the two due to the fact that it is based in pure logic and reasoning.

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. The Ontological Argument argues that because God is perfect and unlimited, he must exist, even in nonbelievers; existing is a quality of perfection.

sense for him to be the reason we are born to then die leaving a question mark to our existence and the world.

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

In this essay, I will set out to prove that Thomas Aquinas’ First Cause Argument does not show that God exists and the conclusion that God exists does not follow from the premises of the first cause argument. I do think that the conclusion is valid and could be sound/or has the potential to be, but the premises fail to provide the basis upon which to reach such a conclusion. Hence, I will be raising some objections to the premises and will try to disprove any counter-arguments that could be raised in its defense. This would be done by examining Aquinas’ First Cause Argument and trying to disprove it whilst countering arguments in its defense.

St. Anselm and Descartes are known for presenting the first ontological arguments on the existence of God. The word ontological is a compound word derived from ‘ont’ which means exists or being and ‘–ology’ which means the study of. Even though Anselm and Descartes’ arguments differ slightly, they both stem from the same reasoning. Unlike the other two arguments on God’s existence (teleological and cosmological), the ontological argument does not seek to use any empirical evidence but rather concentrates on pure reason. The rationale behind this school of thought

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. He brings up that infinity is nowhere found in reality or in rational thought. I think this was of his most powerful arguments because it makes the most sense logically. My brain works with numbers and

The evolution theory of Charles Darwin will continue being stronger compared to the traditional religious beliefs of creation. Among the many diverse issues in a society with intense controversy, the ongoing conflict between religious segments and the world of science is underscored. In this view, the following argumentative essay will scrutinize this debate between creationism and evolution to show how the later holds more weight and worth believing. The theory of evolution has proved that the creationist beliefs, as well as their denials, tend to defy logic, reality and science. Science can be considered as an intelligent understanding of phenomena while religion is more of a blind belief.

In Lara Buchak’s essay, Can It Be Rational to Have Faith? , she asserts that everyday faith statements and religious faith statements share the same attributes. She later states that in order to truly have faith, a person ceases to search for more evidence for their claim, and that having faith can be rational. Although she makes compelling arguments in favor of faith in God, this essay is more hearsay and assumption than actual fact. In this paper, you will see that looking for further evidence would constitute not having faith, but that having faith, at least in the religious sense, is irrational.

Many philosophers believe that there are reasons to demonstrate the God does exist through arguments. There are three main types of arguments that explain the existence of God. These include Cosmological, Teleological, and Ontological, which are all traditional arguments. There are two groups that divide the arguments “An a posteriori argument is based on premises that can be known only by means of experience of the world (e.g., that there is a world, that events have causes, and so forth). An a priori argument, on the other hand, rests on premises that can be known to be true independently of experience of the world (Pojman 19).

Descartes’ version of the ontological argument offers a logical conclusion for the existence of God. As is consistent among all versions of the ontological arguments, a series of premises are offered, that once excepted naturally draw the conclusion that God exists. Descartes argument builds off of the argument originally presented by Anselm 500 years prior to Descartes account. Arguably, Descartes strengthened the argument through adapting it to his Cartesian philosophy. Although, improvements may have been made, Descartes’ argument suffers from the same fallacious reasoning present in Anselm’s argument.

IV. The Problem of Evil So far, we have examined only arguments for the existence of God. But for each argument, we have also discussed some objections. Some theists may accept all these objections and yet maintain a belief in the existence of God.

It is important that we accept that religion is Man’s attempt to answer these questions and because it is an institution reliant upon faith, it is acceptable for one to accept Religion as a precursor for complex ideas, and interpret its fallacies as misunderstandings, however, it is unreasonable for one to justify the rejection of science to prevent controversy with the beliefs of religion. Furthermore, it is unreasonable for one to ever justify the rejection of science for any reason, as this praxis clouds the mind and decreases one’s capacity to comprehend the true nature of the universe and the governing laws to which it

When incorporating both science and religion to explain the physical, chemical, and biological origins, one must look at the origin of the cosmos, Earth history, the origin of life, and biodiversity. In doing so, one must maintain a balance between science and religion so that one does not supersede the other. Furthermore, by examining both sides, it will establish an answer that is mutually beneficial for both parties. Starting with the origin of the cosmos, Genesis 1:1 states that God created the universe, Earth, day, and night for nothing. While this story is accepted based on faith, science shows a similar event that resulted in the creation of the universe. The Big Bang Theory, known by scientists as for how the world came to fruition,

Religion is an important belief in life for many people, in which they believe in supernatural powers. There are millions of people that believe that God exists in this world; however, there are also people that do not believe in God. Several famous figures in history have given proofs for God’s existence, such as René Descartes, Isaac Newton, and Thomas Paine. However, there are also people that do not believe in these proofs, such as David Hume. Through Soccio 's “Archetypes of Wisdom: An Introduction to Philosophy”, one can see that Hume rejects Descartes’s ontological proofs, Newton’s teleological proof, and Paine’s cosmological proof of God’s existence.