In this essay I will discuss both the strengths and weakness of the cosmological argument for the existence of God and conclude that the cosmological argument is a weak one. I will begin by outlining the simple version of the argument and its strongest criticism, which is the causal principle. I will then define contingent, necessary, dependent and independent and discuss the importance of these definitions. Following on from this, I will discuss the Kalam cosmological argument, which is an argument that attempts to avoid the criticism of the simple version by including a premise regarding the beginning of beings such as the universe. I will argue that, whilst the Kalam cosmological argument is shown to be successful to some extent, the …show more content…
causal principle is again a strong criticism against this version of the cosmological argument. I will then discuss the beginning of the universe and the support this provides for the Kalam cosmological argument however it is concluded that this support is weak. Specifically I will argue that the idea of infinite regress as the cause of existence of the universe is a relatively strong criticism of the argument, as it shows another one of the argument’s premise to be invalid and as such the argument unsound. However, I will then discuss the strongest support for the cosmological argument, that being Swinburne’s proposal of the cosmological argument being the most probable argument and as such to take the cosmological argument as an inference to the best explanation. I will conclude that despite Swinburne’s strong defence of the argument, it is invalid and as such unsound therefore making it a weak argument for the existence of God. The simple version of the cosmological argument has the following premises P1: Everything that exists has a cause of its existence P2: The universe exists P3: Therefore the universe has a cause of its existence P4: If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is God C: Therefore God exists (Shackel 2017) The strongest criticism of this argument and its premises is that of the causal principle - does every event require a cause? (Hume 1711 - 1776). If every event must require a cause then this argument solves nothing as God and the universe would both then require a cause. If God is not in existence then there is only the existence of the Universe that is unexplained, if God is in existence then the existence of God is the only entity that cannot be explained. However, if God was not to require a cause, this is a counter example of premise one and as such premise one is false which makes the simple cosmological argument unsound. Therefore, the argument fails, as it is unsound. A contingent being is a being that exists but might not have existed (Shackel 2017) whilst a necessary being is one that must exist (Shackel 2017).
A dependent being is a being that depends for its existence on another being (Shackel 2017) whereas an independent being is a being that does not depend for its existence on another being (Shackel 2017). The universe is said to be both a contingent being and a dependent one but God is said to be a necessary being and an independent one. This distinction is key to the cosmological argument. If it can be proved that the universe is a necessary being rather than a contingent dependent one then the cosmological argument is unsound.
The Kalam cosmological argument attempts to resolve the above criticism by stating that it is only things with a beginning, which require a cause of existence. The premise state that the universe has a beginning of existence but that God does not and as such, the universe requires a cause of existence whilst God does not. The Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God comes from the following premises
P1: Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its
…show more content…
existence P2: The universe has a beginning of its existence P3: Therefore the universe has a cause of its existence P4: That cause is God C: Therefore God exists (Reichenbach 2016) The Kalam cosmological argument succeeds to an extent in explaining the distinction between the existence of the Universe and the existence of God as the Universe has a known beginning, that being 15 billion years ago, whilst God does not have such an existence. However the causal principle is not resolved as why must every event have a cause? Hume (1711-1776) argued that this is a synthetic truth rather than an analytic one meaning that it is known through experience as it a posteriori. Despite our experience showing that everything so far has a cause, can this same principle be applied to the beginning of the universe? (Lacewing n.d) The beginning of the universe has not been experienced and as such makes it difficult to apply the same principles to it. Furthermore, the beginning of the universe is not such an event that occurs usually within the universe, “it doesn't take place in space or time, since both come into existence within the universe” (Lacewing n.d) Whilst everything within the universe may have a cause of existence, this does not necessarily mean that the universe too must have a cause of existence. Principles developed for events within the universe may not apply to the universe as a whole (Lacewing n.d) and as such this a strong argument against the Kalam cosmological argument. Premise three is shown to be invalid and so the argument as a whole is unsound. On the other hand, science suggests that the universe is 15 billion years old and as such the universe has a finite past meaning that it must have a cause of existence. However, “that cause can’t exist in time if time didn't exist before the universe” (Lacewing n.d), this suggests that the cause must exist but outside of time which God did according to many theists (Lacewing n.d). Therefore, this offers support of the Kalam cosmological argument albeit this support is relatively weak relative to the criticisms. However, it can be argued that the cause of the universe may just be another previous universe and that this continues infinitely as an “infinite regress of causes” (Lacewing n.d). Infinity has no beginning and as such an infinite regress of causes removes the necessity for the existence of God as the universe has no beginning and so does not require a cause. Therefore, it can be successfully argued that the cause of the universe is a previous universe and that this regress can continue infinitely and so the Kalam cosmological argument fails due to premise four being invalid and so the argument becomes unsound. Swinburne (1984) attempts to defend the cosmological argument by saying that it “is better understood as an inference to the best explanation” (Lacewing n.d). Whilst the existence of God may not have been logically proven, the premises of the cosmological argument show that it is probable that such a God could have existed. The cosmological argument makes it more probable that God’s existence was the cause of the beginning of the universe. Swinburne (1984) argues that the cosmological argument combined with other arguments such as the argument of miracles and religious experience, makes it more probable that God exists rather than God not existing. Whilst Swinburne does not defend the existence of God, he strengthens the cosmological argument by showing that it could be the best explanation for the cause of the existence of the universe. The premises are plausible, and the inferences are intuitive” (Lacewing n.d) supports the argument. Furthermore, the cosmological argument argues nothing else about God, only that it God needs “to be able to create the universe” (Lacewing n.d). Overall, the Kalam cosmological argument fails due to the questionability of whether every event must have a cause, the causal principle.
Criticisms of the Kalam cosmological argument raise doubt about whether the principles applied to things within the universe can be applied to the universe as a whole and as such the third premise can be said to be invalid which causes the argument to be unsound. Furthermore, the idea of infinite regress further weakens the strength of the cosmological argument as this argument removes the requirement of a necessary being such as God. The strongest support of the cosmological argument is that of the argument being the most probable explanation for the cause of the existence of the universe. However even this support is weak due to the arguments mentioned previously - the causal principle and the infinite regress of causes. Therefore, the cosmological argument is a poor one due to two of its premises being invalid for different reasons and so the whole argument is
unsound.
Thomas Aquinas, a leading scholar of the Middle Ages, argued that “Everything in the universe has a cause. Trace those causes back and there must have been a First Cause that triggered everything else. God is that First Cause.” This was known as his “First Cause” argument.
The intricacy of a simple time telling device has sparked controversy about the creation of the universe. In William Paley’s “The Analogical Teleological Argument” he argues that the universe must have been created by a universe maker, God, due to its complexity. However, David Hume, provides an empiricist objection by arguing that one cannot prove the existence of a universe maker due to lack of experience regarding the creation of a universe. Ultimately, I will argue that Paley’s argument by design is not sufficient for proving God 's existence because, as individuals, we cannot assume that the world works the way we wish it.
Within William Rowe’s Chapter two of “The Cosmological Argument”, Rowe reconstructs Samuel Clark's Cosmological Argument by making explicit the way in which the Principle of Sufficient Reason, or PSR, operates in the argument as well as providing contradictions of two important criticisms from Rowe’s argument.
The Main Strengths of the Cosmological Argument There are many strengths within the Cosmological Argument which have proven theories and ways to prove the existence of God. Many of these strengths have come from such scholars as; Copleston, Aquinas and Leibniz, all of which have put together major points to prove the existence of a non-contingent being. One of the main strengths of the Cosmological Argument is from Aquinas way I that was about motion. This would be a posteriori argument because you need to gather evidence from the world around you.
After exhibiting faulty methods of argument and frequent logical fallacies, the teleological argument fails as a well-crafted argument. The content of this argument refuses to account for evolutionary theory, and fails to solve the burden of proof in showing how everything is designed deliberately. Even the criterion for god, which William Paley outlines, is faulty and unachievable by the current state of reality. Although the argument proves that an amalgamation of forces formed the universe, to consider them conscious is begging the question. Ultimately, the teleological argument is an inadequate and dated explanation for the creation of the universe.
First off, The Cosmological Argument was developed by St. Thomas Aquinas in 1274 through his work entitled Summa Theologica (otherwise known as Five Ways). Its purpose was to prove God’s existence through sensory perception. In Part One, Article Three of Prima Pars, Aquinas states that in order to debate, one must become involved in the opposing argument, then afterwards argue their view. In this case, one must look at both the argument for God’s existence (Theism) and for God’s non-existence (Atheism) in order to truly understand the argument that they are arguing for or against. The cosmological argument is divided into three parts, each containing varying sub-arguments:
...Contingency Argument that whether a contingent series of causes is infinite or not, that fact is now irrelevant because as long as the series as a whole is thought to be contingent the existence of God can still be proven. So the Contingency Argument looks something like this.
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
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...
The claims of rationality and the so-called scientific approach of the atheists and agnostics have been debunked. In the coming pages we shall see that both in the creation of the universe, in things created within the universe and in the creation of living beings, an intelligently designed process is going on, and we shall demonstrate that the objections of agnostics and skeptics to this assertion are merely delusions.
The Proof of the Existence of God There are many arguments that try to prove the existence of God. In this essay I will look at the ontological argument, the cosmological. argument, empirical arguments such as the avoidance of error and the argument from the design of the. There are many criticisms of each of these that would say the existence of God can’t be proven that are perhaps.
Secondly, the first and second arguments are invalid because the way the Big Bang happened and the universe was created was left to a good deal of chance and it would have been illogical for God to have created it that way. If God did create it in this form then it would be contradictory to Aquinas' idea of a completely rational, benevolent, and omnipotent God. Aquinas' third argument is unsound because he states that not every entity can fail to exist, but during singularity all of the matter in the universe is suspended in one lawless and unlocatable point. The lack of governing laws and any way to tell where that point would have been is proof that it may not have existed. The scientific proof of the beginning of the universe renders Aquinas' first three arguments from Summa Theologica unsound.
1. David S. Oderberg, "Traversal of the Infinite, the “Big Bang” and the Kalam Cosmological Argument", Philosophia Christi 4 (2002): 305-36
Creation of the Universe It would be ignorant to believe that there is only one explanation for the creation of the universe. The Vedic hymns present several cosmogonies. There are many interpretations for these myths resulting from there documentation on various levels of culture. It is purposeless to quest for the origin of each of these cosmogonies because most of these ideas and beliefs represent a heritage transmitted from prehistory all over the ancient world. There are four essential types of cosmogonies that seem to have fascinated
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.