What Are The Main Features Of The Cosmological Argument

1. Present the strongest version of the ontological argument that you can. Explain either Gaunilo’s or Kant’s objection to the ontological argument. How is that objection supposed to work?

As a counter argument it is faulty, and ultimately fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the traditional God exists and has an adequate reason for evil. In a court of law, the burden of proof falls onto the prosecution to prove their claim beyond a reasonable doubt while the defense counters their position by establishing some doubt. The prosecution can be seen as Craig as he claims the existence of a God, whereas Sinnott-Armstrong’s atheism only exists in relation to theism. Atheism is a response to theism but theism is an idea in itself, independent of atheism. In other words, without theism atheism would not exist, as such without a claim made by the Crown the defense is not needed.

If African or Native Americans knew the same things as the Spanish it would be questionable to say that the world would be the same as it is now. It is that idea that Diamond stresses. It’s the notion that the world evolved simply because of favorable environmental resources that allowed one race to have a more favorable outcome then the

It is contradictory. It does not actually say that God exists, but that we can call the unknown cause of everything god. The word god can be the name for some energy that caused the Big Bang. The final argument is the ontological argument.

In essence, consequentialism is the ideology that justifies its action by producing the greater good (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Some may refer to the principle of utility as the greatest happiness principle. Utilitarianism was fully developed by a British philosopher named John Stuart Mill. There are two types of utilitarianism: Act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. Act Utilitarianism is a belief in which, an individual’s actions are moral as long as the actions produce the greatest outcome possible.

The Toulmin method is an effective tool that helps determine the efficacy of an argument by using this method the author’s argumentative strategies are evaluated to determine their strength. This essay will use the Toulmin method in order to assess the strength of James E. McWilliams’ argument. The Toulmin method will break down the author’s argument into components—the claim, evidence, warrant, qualifiers, and rebuttal. Through using the Toulmin method, Williams’ argument and the components of his argument will be dissected and individually analyzed to determine each component’s effectiveness and how it contributes to the overall power and credibility of Williams’ argument.

Belief is not Decision Pascal’s Wager, the argument that an individual who believes in God’s existence is entitled to infinite gains. There are three objections against Pascal article, including “the wrong motivation”, “too many options” and “Belief not a decision”. Among these three reasonable objections, I believe that the strongest one is “Belief not a decision”, because everything needs a reason as people are born as rational creatures. Otherwise, people believe in the existence of God because they trust that God could bring benefits to them. For me, although the objection is reasonable, I still think the Pascal’s response is stronger.

The Modal Ontological Argument by Alvin Plantinga uses modal logic using possibility and necessity to show that it is rational to believe in God. However, the argument is not a proof of the existence of a being who is a maximally great being as it’s not to prove or establish a conclusion but for it to be rational to accept the central premise and the conclusion (Oppy, Graham, "Ontological Arguments"). Premise one says it is possible that God exists. Possible, meaning he is Metaphysically possible as there are other reasons for Gods possibility than strictly logical and being that the Ontological argument is Metaphysical.

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

Such sub claims include:

the cosmological argument seems to be successful in both its first and second stages that the cosmos exists and it has a first cause. Its third point the first cause is God is more contentious, but it is far from easy to decline. Aquinas ' appreciation of God is a practical one God is not just an appropriate thing that might or might not exist. God is existence in its accomplishment or completeness. accepting that our compassionate accessible us on to such an existence is a common aspiration for do we not all want to know a more perfect reality?

Secondly, there is atheism which states that god does not exist. Lastly, there is agnosticism which states that it’s unclear that god does or does not exist. You would think if you don’t have enough evidence for god’s existence, it would be a good idea to go with the argument of agnosticism. However, there is sufficient evidence to prove that argument unsound. I will defend atheism because of all the evil that is prevalent in the world.

All of these things work out of natural law. And that is all deemed right, because it deals in the laws of nature, and is right within the laws of reason. because if everything is reasonable, and understandable then it is right. And if it is right, therefore it is good. Divine Command works out of what God tells us to do.

The Cosmological Argument or First Cause Argument is a philosophical contention for the presence of God which clarifies that everything has a cause, that there more likely than not been a first cause and that this first cause was itself not caused. The history first cause contentions' were put forward by Plato and Aristotle in the fourth and third hundreds of years BC. These contentions keep up that everything that exists or happens probably had a cause. So on the off chance that one would backpedaled in time, one would find a first cause. Aristotle, a deist, set that this first cause was the maker of the universe.

All of the philosophers that we've studied so far have made some valid arguments concerning the existence, or non-existence of God. If I had to be swayed by an opinion for God's existence, or non-existence it would have to be by William Paley's argument. Paley's analogy is strong because of his metaphor of the watch to explain the universe and the existence of an intelligent designer. The weak part of this analogy is that the watchmaker as evidence can be produced in the physical form; the universe maker as evidence cannot be produced in physical form.