Consistently from the dawn of human existence, the idea of “God”, or simply the questions of the place from whence the human body has come from forced any individual to consider the religious value or idea of God regarding God’s responsibility for every piece of matter in which makes up life. One of the most critical arguments that claim that there must be a God is the Kalem Cosmological argument, which uses the universe’s mere existence or the beginning of the universe’s existence to claim that whatever has a beginning, must have a cause, insinuating that the cause of the universe’s beginning is in theory, God. Though with creative intellect in further questioning it’s impossible for one not to question that the Cosmological argument may be correct in theory, but does the cause of the universe have to be God? Throughout this paper, I’ll be focusing on the argument that God’s existence does not have to be the direct cause of the begging of the universe, nor does the cosmological argument actually prove the existence of God for that matter.…
In contrast to natural explanations for man’s origin, the theistic position assigns (in part or in total) the presence of man upon the earth to external factors (an open system)…
McCloskey claims that the “mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in such a being.” He goes on to state that because there are beings in the universe that do not have any explanation for their existence, one can infer that there must be some “ultimate” being responsible. The original cause of being is necessary because contingency cannot be infinite. The cosmological argument is the basis for why we may question the existence of anything, but it is not a sufficient enough answer to the bigger question of an all-powerful ultimate…
Who is responsible for creating all of mankind and all that surrounds it? God is responsible for the creation of the universe and the existence of that personal God is proven by a plethora of scientific evidence and logically probable reasons. Ironically, some of the opposing arguments originating from the atheistic worldview contribute to the constructing of theistic truths. While using the multiple competing hypotheses method of finding the most probable cause to the universe and the existence of all mankind, a personal creator fits better than the probability of creation just happening by chance. This universe is very complex and the existence of the personal creator can be explained in two arguments out of the many existing arguments…
The cosmological argument argues the existence of God since there had to be a creator of all things in nature that depend on something else for their existence. McCloskey’s idea is that the existence of the universe is not enough to confirm the existence of God. An argument that can be used against this statement is the non-temporal form of the cosmological argument. In the book “Philosophy of Religion” by Evans and Manis, the non-temporal form has three components. First there is some contingent beings exist (Evans and Manis, 69). The second component is that if any contingent being exist then a significant being must exist (69). Third, there must be the existence of a significant being (69). Furthermore, the cause of the universe is necessary because is important because without that development then there would be not existence of the contingent beings. Another claim by McCloskey is that the cosmological argument “does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause”; this statement is not necessarily true. Since the world around McCloskey does exist there must be an ultimate creator who created the universe and this creator is…
They break down their argument into three different components, “Some contingent beings exist. If any contingent beings exist, then a necessary being must exist. Therefore there exists a necessary being” (Pg. 70). They explain that an infinite series is evidence to prove the contingent being exists. This presents an idea that there is no final explanation to this cause. To argue the statement by some atheist that claim that the world has always existed, they say that they do not make any claims about how old the universe which explains a universe that may have always…
The concept that there cannot be nothing and so must be something is due to the evidence we as human beings have experienced throughout our lives; every effect ever made has had a cause. Aquinas used the laws of Motion and Design to demonstrate how every action must have a correlating reaction, and related this to his argument for God being the first cause – the uncaused causer. This is laid out in the Cosmological Argument, taken directly from the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry;…
In the first paragraph, Clarke tries to dispel the notion of an endless progression of dependent beings by examining the reason for its existence. First, he establishes that to have a succession of beings, each successive being has to rely on the previous one for its creation. He then states that the infinite series of dependent beings has to include everything that has existed, currently exists, or will exist in the universe. Because this is an exhaustive collection, nothing can exist outside of this infinite succession. If those statements are both true, then there cannot be an outside being or force from another universe that started the dependent chain. Thus, the reason for the chain’s existence has to come from within itself. The purpose…
The cosmological argument for the existence of God. .... The first thing to note about the cosmological argument is that it is A Posteriori. ....…
One final point about why this cause is considered to be God is that St. Thomas Aquinas also described this force as being better than what created it. St. Thomas Aquinas quotes Aristotle in the text book pointing out that “when many things possess some properties in common, the one most fully possessing is causes it in the others”. What this meant according to St. Thomas Aquinas, “there is something therefore which causes in all other things their being… and this we call…
The cosmological argument seeks to prove the existence of God on the basis that the universe has not always been in existence and so for it to be created, an external cause was necessary; this outside agent is viewed as God. It creates à posteriori knowledge which provides inductive explanations and makes conclusions on ideas based on actual experiences. It is a non-propositional argument so it cannot be proven but can be argued by offering experience as support.…
of God or at least a creator. During this part we were taught that the big bang actually proves that…
The cosmological argument proves the existence of God. It discusses contingent beings which exist, but could not have existed and necessary beings which exist and could not not exist. The cosmological says that there is a contingent being that exists. The existence of a contingent being must have a cause and the contingent being cannot be the cause of itself. The complete cause of a contingent being includes only other contingent beings or it includes a necessary being. Contingent beings alone cannot be the complete cause of a contingent being. The complete cause of a contingent being must include a necessary being. Therefore, a necessary being must exist. The cosmological argument shows that there must be a higher power, and that higher power is God. Everything that exists on earth is a contingent being. There is no person or animal that is not contingent. But what created everything to begin with if a contingent being cannot be the only cause of another contingent being? Everything on earth has a cause, but there must be a necessary being being that caused the Earth. There has to be something other than contingent beings. There has to be a necessary being that started everything. That necessary being is…
This cause, proponents of Cosmological argument claim, is God. This argument rests on the fact that all beings or events have some cause. The only exception to this rule is God, who must have existed for an infinite amount of time or been created from nothing. The main criticism of this argument is that it requires that every being has a cause, but it follows that God cannot have a cause. It is very hard to imagine a being that has no cause because it is in human nature to believe there is a cause for everything…
In McCloskey's article he states that "the mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in such a being."{1} This appears to be his main issue with the cosmological argument. But Evans and Manis discuss a non-temporal form of the cosmological argument. They break down the non-temporal form into three different parts. The first one being that some contingent beings exist. Secondly, if any contingent beings exist, then a necessary being must exist. And thirdly, a necessary being does exist. I feel that they realize the issue that the absolute reoccurring of evidence proves a contingent being exists might give the idea that there is not a definitive reason to the cause. The cause of the universe is necessary because the cause is God, and God's existence is what is uncaused and absolute.…