The Cosmological Argument Or First Cause

On the Cosmological Argument, the existence of God has been a reality, whether the creator was a being or a thing. The existence of the universe is not enough to validate the existence of God. One can come up with an argument which intends to give an insight on how people understand the creation theory, and where God came from. The understanding offers a basis of the argument which McCloskey believes should be abandoned because it is unclear where God came from. What causes the universe is necessary and is therefore, uncaused (Noone, 2009). In this case, there should be a true

The complexities inherent with any mention of a higher being to explain any natural phenomenon goes against the principles of Ockham’s razor as a simplifying argument. Ockham’s razor is used successfully throughout history to simplify complex observable ideas. The unobservable, abstract ideas are not always as easily explained using Ockham’s razor. God is inherently a complex, abstract idea. For this reason, ontological argument, cosmological argument, and teleological arguments are immune from the ability to be over simplified using the application of Ockham’s

The first part of the argument demonstrates that infinity does not exist. The present would not exist because we could never reach an exact point in infinity. This displays the fact that the universe had a beginning. Current scientific theories show that the universe had a beginning 14.5 billion years ago. The second part of the argument claims that time started with the beginning of the universe. Therefore, God is not a part of time and is not a temporal being. The Kalam argument differs from Aquinas’s argument because it deals with the problem of a non-temporal being who simultaneously creates the universe and time. The Kalam argument deals with time, empirical data, and

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? And so it is conceivable contemptuous to dismiss this third stage. Furthermore, Aquinas is not claiming that the cosmological argument is the only way for our compassionate to open on to this more excellent

Clark’s Cosmological Argument is often called the first cause argument seeks to prove the existence of God from the fact that the universe exists. The universe came into existence at a point in the distant past. Nothing can come into existence, though, unless there is something to bring it into existence; nothing comes from nothing. There must therefore be some being outside of the universe that caused the universe to exist. This argument, if it is successful, demonstrates the existence of a Creator that transcends time, which has neither beginning nor

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.

Humans all over the world and at all time periods have wondered everything about the creation of the world. This phenomenon - the unity of personal thoughts all around the globe - is known as the collective unconscious, as mentioned in “The Inner Reaches of Outer Space: Metaphor as Myth and as Religion” reviewed by Robert A. Segal. The functions of myths are mystical, cosmological, sociological, and psychological. The myth of the “Naba Zid-Wendé” serves a cosmological function due to its elements. All myths have specific elements that pertain to that function; the elements of the cosmological function are as follows: “Because there is an INNER eye, THEN ALL things come together. People’s mythology

To begin, the Cosmological arguments is an a Posteriori argument. The argument goes as follows, there exists things

The ontological argument is an argument based, not on the observation of the universe as cosmology and theological arguments but rather using only the reason. Everything we see today in the universe was created by a God, which created the humans in a predict time and perfect time. The first and most popular form of this argument starts from Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century. It begins with the statement that the concept of God is such a being, that nothing greater can be conceived. Since existence is possible, and existence is greater than non-existence, then God must

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

God exists because there can be none greater that can be thought. The ontological argument begins with the claim that God, by definition, is infinitely great. Thus, no entity can surpass God’s greatness. One of the many famous arguments proving God’s existence by a seventeenth-century famed philosopher Anselm. 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. According to Craig, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is constructed as follows Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence.

The teleological argument, or otherwise known as the argument from design and the intelligent design argument, is a philosophical theory put forward by William Paley with its final premise of proving that god exists. The argument includes a handful of elements, however close to the fringe yet within the margin, of logic in order to assist the facilitation of accepting the premise as a truth. As we examine the argument, and its implications in the context in which it was given, we can begin to see the boundary of logic become veiled and intuition and assumptions start to interpose.The teleological argument is most commonly started with a supposition parable dealing with a watch, so lets start out with that.

McCloskey claimed that the cosmological argument “does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause.” At first glance of this statement I am understanding the statement as that something doesn’t allow us to come up with a belief or solution, which is silly. In the same thinking one could say that based on his arguments he is not allowed to assume there is no God. Nevertheless, based on the existence of a contingent being it points toward the existence of a necessary being because they require an ultimate cause. Beyond this, the cosmological argument may be limited. Upon a person believing this they will surely be thirsting for more information of who God is. While there is limitation on this argument with some questions

I found Chapter nine to be very interesting. Chapter nine discusses how the world came together. There are various suggestions in chapter nine that discuss how the world came into order. Livingston says, “A cosmology is an account of the emergence or creation of world order (183).” There is a difference in cosmology when it comes to a primal substance and cosmology from a union of a primal male and female. In the book of Genesis there are two different narratives.

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.