Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Pros and cons creation theory
Existentialist theology
What is christian existentialism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Pros and cons creation theory
Craig/Kalam’s Cosmological Argument One of the most argued topics throughout human history is whether or not God exists. It is argued frequently because there are several different reasonings and sub arguments in this main argument. People who believe God exists argue how God acts and whether there is one or several. People who do not believe God exists argue how the universe became into existence or if it has just always existed. In this paper, I will describe Craig's argument for the existence of God and defend Craig's argument. William Lane Craig is not the original creator of this argument. It was originally created by Ilm al-Kalam, but Craig is a modern philosopher that has restored this argument. In this argument, …show more content…
If infinity did exist in the physical world, then logic would break down. For example, if you had an infinite amount of toys in a store, it would be impossible because an infinite amount of an object cannot be contained in a finite space. However, infinity can be useful in the mathematical field. In calculus, infinity is used for limits. In other words, how a function behaves as one or more variables approach infinity. Also, the function itself can approach infinity which means it is increasing dramatically but will not ever get to …show more content…
Since he is a modern philosopher, he would be understand the concept of infinity with limits. He understands that even though infinity does not physically exist, its concept can still be of good use. Most philosophers would not understand it since calculus was not invented until the 17th century. If I were to speak to Craig directly, I think he would have thought that I am on the right track of God being in the fourth dimension. He might question why God is in the 4th dimension and not a higher dimension if there is one higher that exists. Overall, Craig would be pleased with my
It is evident that McCloskey’s arguments in an attempt to disprove the existence of God lacks evidence. He disputes the existence of God based on a lack of undisputable evidence, but he provides no undisputable evidence to counter this existence. He dismisses the idea of a creator by theory of evolution. Although he may have a valid argument for evolution he still does not account for the start of the world. Everything must come from something. The cause cannot be unlimited, there was a cause that had to be free of all other causes, and this points us to creation.
Typically, cosmological arguments occur in two different phases. The first phase’s purpose is to provide the premise that there is a ‘first cause’ or an independent being that caused the creation of our universe, while the second phase’s purpose is to argue that this being has godlike features like omnipotence and immanence. To justify the claims in these phases, the Cosmological Argument takes into consideration the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR), which is the principle that there is an explanation for the existence of every single thing (referred to as PSRa), and for every positive fact (referred to as PSRb). This principle is a key element of the cosmological argument as it provides rationale to the premises of the argument with what appears to be obvious facts.
Throughout history there has always been discussions and theories as to how the universe came to be. Where did it come from? How did it happen? Was it through God that the universe was made? These philosophies have been discussed and rejected and new theories have been created. I will discuss three theories from our studies, Kalam’s Cosmological Argument, Aquinas’s Design Argument, and Paley’s Design Argument. In this article, I will discuss the arguments and what these arguments state as their belief. A common belief from these three theories is that the universe is not infinite, meaning that the universe was created and has a beginning date. Each believe that there was a God, deity, or master creator that created the universe for a reason. They also believe that
In today’s culture, the idea of there is perfect and divine designer that made the earth and everything that entails with it, really pushes people away. Not only has this idea been conflicted about in today’s culture. It has been especially trivial in past decades, an example of this is seen by H.J. McCloskey. McCloskey wrote an article about it called “On Being an Atheist”, which attempts to defeat the notion that there is a God. McCloskey first addresses the reader of the article and says these arguments he is about to address are only “proofs”, which should not be trusted by any theist. He then goes and unpacks the two arguments that he believes can actually be addressed, the cosmological and teleological argument. McCloskey also addresses the problem of evil, free will, and why atheism is more comforting than theism.
...cartes would have said according to Pascal, all God did, was put a fillip in things to get them going. Look at all that came of it; it is amazing. Before humans had an understanding of how the universe arrived at its current state, they could see that it was divinely inspired and turned to God for explanation.
In essence, the second argument said that there must be cause--or beginning--to everything, which ultimately, gives rise to effect, result, or the end. Consequently, second effect must be created and caused by the "first element of series" (Bailey and Martin, 2011, 34); therefore, the effect and existence of nth (equals to the last or end) element in series are ultimately caused and created by the 'first element,' which we call God. It is probable that first element may give direct rise to nth element. Other than God, nothing is considered infinite. So, God does not have a cause; and hence, it would have no effect.
To begin, proof of God’s existence is seen in the group of cosmological arguments. The cosmological arguments are a set of arguments that demonstrate the existence of a sufficient reason or first cause of the existence of the cosmos, or the universe as a whole. There are three different types of cosmological arguments, the Kalam, Thomist and and Leibnizian cosmological arguments. Proponents of the cosmological argument include Plato, Aristotle, and John Locke. Contemporary defenders include William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne.
Humans can never know for the certain why the universe was created or what caused it but, we can still create arguments and theories to best explain what might have created the universe. The cosmological argument is another idea to prove the existence of god. Many philosophers debate wheatear the cosmological argument is valid. The cosmological argument starts off quite simply: whatever exists must come from something else. Nothing is the source of its own existences, nothing is self-creating []. The cosmological argument states at some point, the cause and effect sequence must have a beginning. This unexpected phenomenal being is god. According to the argument, god is the initial start of the universe as we know it. Though nothing is self-creating cosmological believers say god is the only being the is self –created. Aquinas, an Italian philosopher, defended the argument and developed the five philosophical proofs for the existence of god knows as, the “Five Ways”.[]. In each “way” he describes his proof how god fills in the blanks of the unexplainable. The first way simply states that, things in motion must be put in motion by something. The second was is efficient because, nothing brings its self into existence. The third is, possibility and necessity [!]. Aqunhias’ has two more ‘ways’ but for the purpose of this essay I won’t be focusing on them heavily. These ways have started philosophers to debate and question his arguments ultimately made the cosmological argument debatable. The cosmological argument is however not a valid argument in explaining the existence of god because the conclusions do not logically follow the premises.
Two arguments that best attempt to prove God's existence, are the ontological argument by St. Anselm, and the cosmological argument by St. Thomas Aquinas. The second out of the five arguments provided in the cosmological argument is based on experience and efficient cause. The efficient cause makes something happen, i.e.. Cause and effect, and this is the premises for his argument. Aquinas argues that nothing in this world can originate on it's own, and must have a first cause (God) to create an intermediate cause, to create an ultimate cause and effect. Infinity makes it impossible to have a first efficient cause, but if there is no first cause, there would be no intermediate cause (universe), and we (nature) would not exist.
For as long as long as history has been recorded there has been interest in how the universe came to be. The science community seems to agree that the big bang was what created the universe, but there are many conflicting arguments surrounding what existed before the big bang and what initiated it. While there are nearly infinite responses to this question, there are only two paths one can take when answering it; either something existed prior to the big bang or the entire universe came from nothing. Lawrence M. Krauss, acclaimed physicist and cosmologist, uses his understanding of science in his book, A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing, to elucidate that it is logical for something to come from nothing. Krauss recognizes that much of the world attributes the creation to God and quotes Steven Weinberg in saying that “science does not make it impossible to believe in God, but rather makes it possible to believe in God” (183). Using the big bang theory, the discovery of both dark matter and energy, and the idea that many features of the universe do come from nothing Krauss makes a convincing argument that the universe did indeed come about with no preexistence.
Whenever it came to the topic of whether or not there is a god I would always think of the sky and all the stars and the pictures of space and all the other planets, and I would just think that someone or something had put all this together. So for me there has always been a God, but during my freshman year I came across the First Cause Argument which revealed to me a simpler way of looking at the matter of whether God really exist or not. Everything comes from something no matter if were talking about humans, animals, earth , or the entire solar system; so when I look at the the source of everything, it becomes clear to me that there is a supreme being capable of doing anything, a God.
Dr. William Lane Craig supports the idea of existence of God. He gives six major arguments, in order to defend his position. The first argument is quite fare, Craig says that God is the best reason of existence of everything. He gives the idea, that the debates between all the people, cannot reach the compromise, because the best explanation of the reasons of existence of everything is God, and nothing can be explained without taking Him into consideration. The second argument of Craig is from a cosmological point of view: he says that the existence of the universe is the best proof of the existence of God. Because, the process of the creation of the universe is so ideally harmonious, that it seems impossible to appear accidentally. The third argument is about the fine tuning of the universe. The universe is designed in such a way that people always have aim of life, and the life of people and the nature are interconnected. The fourth argument of Dr. Craig is about the morality: God is the best explanation of the existence of the morality and moral values in people’s lives. The...
...even correlate on the earliest time, the creation of the universe. Most people argue between the creation of universe by a powerful creator or is it from a huge explosion of materials, big bang? (Taylor). However, let’s try to observe this argument in another point of view; Professor John Polkinghorne, a scientist and a priest in the Church of England, said: “Genesis is not there to give short, technical answers about how the universe began. It gives us the big answer that things exist because of God's will. One can perfectly well believe in the Big Bang, but believe in it as the will of God the creator” (Christianity: Beliefs about Creation and Evolution); from that statement, the existence of a creator is proven but the presence of big bang is also proven. That neutral view addresses the idea by stating that big bang is part of God’s ways in molding the universe.
This paper's purpose is to prove the existence of God. There are ten main reasons that are presented in this paper that show the actuality of God. It also shows counter-arguments to the competing positions (the presence of evil). It also gives anticipatory responses to possible objections to the thesis.
...argument that the universe is eternal, the first Cause must have knowledge on how to keep the universe in motion. In the argument that the universe is created, the first Cause must be knowledgeable on how to create the universe. The Creator must also be knowledgeable about the creators in the universe in which he created. He must know how to create each creature in a way that they will survive in the universe. The final characteristic that the first Cause must have is goodness. In either argument, the first Cause must be good in order to give parts of himself to a universe that is not necessary for his own survival.