The Cosmological Argument: The First Cause

Hambourger’s argument from design argues for the existence of god based on the perceived evidence of deliberate design in the world/universe. To further elaborate on the concepts he uses, Hambourger uses three main concepts; determinism, chance, and mere hap. Hambourger’s argument from design claims that though many things occur by chance, there are some things which we cannot simply accept to have happened by chance, and must therefore have some common explanation in the causal chain of events connecting the two events. For instance the universe is created by many states of affairs coming together. If some slight changes had occurred, the end result could have been vastly different than it currently is. He argues that this could not happen by chance because we think there must be a common explanation of their perception of being impressive, and provides an example of it.

order of the universe he concludes that, there is an intelligent being whom we call "God". As

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. Understanding Ockham’s razor, and the three arguments is essential before seeing if seeing if the three arguments can be simplified and will finally lead to better understand a religious person’s acceptance of faith, and all it encompasses.

William Paley’s argument from design starts off with a man seeing a watch on the side of the road. The argument is whether or not someone designed the watch, or if the watch randomly just showed up there itself by random chance. He makes an analogy of watches and humans. He says that since there is a designer that made the watch, there must be a designer that made us humans. The reason that he compares watches to humans is that is because they are both complex and have parts that work very well together. He says that the designer for humans is God. I think the analogy does a great job of showing that humans have a designer, but I disagree with the argument that it shows that God created us.

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

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 argument for and against the existence of god has been proposed by our great philosophers for so many years. cosmological argument makes an effort to prove that the god is exists by showing that there cannot be a boundless number of throwback causes to things that exist. Existence of god began with Plato and Aristotle who made arguments that would be classify as cosmological. As I believe the existence of god cannot be verified or unconfirmed. Every effect must have a motivation. The universe and everything in it is out come. There must be something that evoke everything to come true into existence. Sooner or later, there must be something whose looking over which is god. In the beginning stage in the argument is a

Aquinas’ First Cause argument is one of a number of Cosmological arguments that aim to prove the existence of God. A Cosmological argument is based on observation and entails the insistence of Gods necessary existence in order to explain the existence of the Universe. The Fist Cause Argument uses the cause and effect of material objects going back into the past in order to find the first cause. It comes to the conclusion of the first cause being an uncaused cause which is said to be the traditional Christian, all-knowing, all-loving and all-powerful, God. There are a number of arguments and objections to the First Cause but I will argue the success of the objection ‘God is More’ objection which objects to the conclusion of the argument that states that the Christian version of God ,with its attached attributes, exists. The second objection is the ‘Immaterial-Material Causation’ objection which questioned how an immaterial being can be able to cause material existence. The prove of the success of these arguments will therefore weaken the success of The First Cause argument.

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote five arguments for the existence of God, part of his Summa Theologiae. Thomas’ second argument for the existence of God is one of the most compelling, as we can see examples from both the Bible and nature to support it. In the cause and effect argument, Thomas starts off with providing reason that all things that exist in the world must have an original cause to all the effects we see on earth. Thomas states, “There is no case known in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself” (Summa Theologiae I 2:3).Thomas is proving that nothing in nature exists without having a cause, and therefore it is impossible for something to exist in nature without something, the effect, prior to it causing it to exist. The bird, the effect, that flies around your backyard was created by two prior birds, the cause, before that one, and you can keep tracing the cause of each bird back far enough when

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.

The existence of God, an idea that has occupied the minds of the most brilliant philosophers in history. In response to this question they created three major arguments for the existence of god. These arguments are the cosmological argument for the existence of god, the anthological argument for the existence of god and the theological argument for the existence of god.

St. Anselm and Descartes arguments are without doubt the most important arguments to the existence of God. They formed the basis for further discussion both by those that agree to these schools of thought as well as those that saw the arguments as weak and decided to show why. Both philosophers agreed that the comprehension of the concept of God was sufficient for anyone to believe in the existence of God even though Anselm argument was skewed towards our inability to conceive a more powerful being while Descartes mainly concentrates on the perfect nature in

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,

Then his wife said to him, “Are you still unshaken in your integrity? Curse God and die!” But he answered, “. . . If we accept good from God, shall we not accept evil?” (Job 2:9-10)

In this argument we already assumed that there may be possibility that God exist and finally we reached where we started. So this argument does not give us the exact information about existence of God. There are many objections on this argument but still it is a powerful argument. In my opinion, this argument is not much satisfactory. It describes that existence is greater than imagination. That is right but here we are only imagining two situation one is just idea of God and another is idea plus reality. But how can we assume that God exists in reality even we don’t know about God’s existence. It seems just a logic which is self-contradictory. We can also apply this logic to other things, maybe this logic will not work. Let’s imagine that electricity is not available in a room, so fan, which is hanging there, is not working. Then we cannot say that fan is not working because electricity is not available. There may be some other problem with the fan. So reverse is not always true. So this argument is ambiguous.