More handpicked essays just for you.
Strengths and weaknesses of the cosmological argument
Strengths of the aquinas cosmological argument
Cosmological argument essays
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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. Aquinas
stated that “Whatever is put in motion, is put in motion by another”,
by this he is saying that nothing can be both mover and moved. So
nothing can move by itself, it is easily to prove this by using an
example in the world. For example you could talk about the line of
humans, they depend on other factors to move. However you could state
that humans move by themselves because they can move at their own free
will, but that ...
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.
In the article The Cosmic Perspective by Neil deGrasse Tyson he examines a range of topics from human life coming from Mars to how our perspective of the universe relates to religion. In the year 2000, a new space show opened at the Hayden Planetarium called Passport to the Universe, which compared the size of people Milky Way and beyond. While a show like this might make someone feel minuscule and insignificant, Tyson says that seeing the size of the universe actually makes him feel more alive not less and gives him a sense of grandeur. I agree with his idea that looking at us as a people in comparison can actually give you a sense of grandeur. However, when I compare myself to the vastness of space, it puts events on Earth in perspective while showing how influential we can be as a people even if we are small.
In this paper I will present two differing views on the topic of the design argument. In particular, I will explain William Paley's view supporting the design argument and Bertrand Russell's view against the design argument. After a presentation of the differing views, I will then evaluate the arguments to show that William Paley has a stronger argument.
In the first part, Aquinas states that the existence of god is not self-evident, meaning that reason alone without appealing to faith can give a good set of reasons to believe. To support this claim, Aquinas refers to “The Argument of Motion”, proposing that:
...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.
To begin with, in order to find Aquinas’ second proof to be a sound argument one must explain the chain of cause and effects that help explain the efficient cause, which is God. There are always things that cause other things. Every effect has a cause, if an effect did not have a cause it would not have been able to exist. Everything could not have come to exist from nothing there has to be a first maker that makes the first being to come to be. God becomes the first efficient cause which starts the chain of cause and effect in which every other thing that is not God depends on Him. Everything that exists from this chain of cause and effect come to be because t...
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.
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.
The cosmological argument is the existence of God, arguing that the possibility of each existing and the domain collected of such elements in this universe. The inquiry is that 'for what reason does anything exist? Why as opposed to nothing? In this paper, I will explain for what reason does everything need cause? Why is God thought to be the principal cause?
whereas a thing that is contingent may go out of existence. The method Aquinas uses is to set up the opposite position, then prove. it to be wrong. Therefore, the cosmological argument begins by accepting the premise that all things are contingent. If all things are contingent, i.e., if all things can go out of existence and do not.
For the purposes of this debate, I take the sign of a poor argument to be that the negation of the premises are more plausible than their affirmations. With that in mind, kohai must demonstrate that the following premises are probably false:
One of Aquinas’s proofs is based on the idea of a first mover and another is based on the idea that intelligence is necessary to direct non-intelligent objects. St. Thomas Aquinas' first argument tries to prove that there must be a first mover. He calls this first mover God. He proves this by saying that whatever is in motion must have been put in motion by something else. He then defines one type of motion as the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality, and says that nothing can make this movement except by something that is already in actuality in the same respect as the first object is in potentiality. He goes on to say that no thing can be both actual and potential in respect to the same aspect and, thus, that nothing can be both moved and mover. In this, he means that nothing can move itself. Therefore, if something is in motion, it must have been put in motion by something else, which must have been put in motion by yet another thing, and so on. However, this cannot go on to infinity, as St. Thomas Aquinas explains, because there would never have been a fist mover and, thus, no subsequent movers. This leads to the conclusion that there is a first mover, and this first mover is what is called God.
Aquinas’ first proof says anything currently in motion was put in motion by another thing. This “mover,” as he calls it, cannot also be the “moved.” The mover transfers its own actuality of motion into the moved, which until then only has the potentiality of motion. Since nothing can have both actuality and potentiality at the same time, the mover and moved cannot be the same thing. Since the universe is motion, it could not have been something from the universe which put it into motion. Therefore, there is a God who first put the universe into motion.
This paper discusses how cosmology and how philosophy can be connected to one another. In order to explain this reason, the paper is broken down into three subtitles which are: metaphysics, religion, and ontology. Each part connects to cosmology in one term or another. In each subtopic, it will discuss the topic, its background in the philosophical review. As a result, in the conclusion, it will discuss how cosmology compares to them all.
The big bang theory is an attempt to explain how the world began. The big bang theory begins with what is called a “singularity.” This term is used to describe an area in space which defies all the known laws of physics. Singularities are thought to exist at the core of black holes. Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that matter is pressed together into an infinite amount of pressure. The dense hot mass of the singularity slowly expanded. This process is called inflation. As the singularity expanded the universe went from dense and hot to cool and expansive. Inflation is still continuing on today which means that the universe is continually expanding.