We are looking for evidence god exists, so we turned to an evidential argument in favor of God: the cosmological argument.…
One argument for the existence of God is the basic design argument. It states that: the world has purpose and order, the complexity of the universe shows evidence of design, such design needs a designer, the only designer of something as great as the universe is God. This provides evidence for the existence of God as natural objects, such as the human eye, are so complex that the chance of them occurring randomly are so minute that it is much more likely that the eye had a designer. This is because each individual part of the eye must be the exact right size and in a specific condition to be able to function at all. A designer who is capable of designing something so detailed must be omnipotent – no question. The only possible being who is able to create something so divine must be God. Therefore the Basic argument shows evidence for the existence of God.…
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…
There is one prevailing question we ask ourselves consistently, “Does God exist?” Every human answer’s that question in their own unique way, which is contingent upon their beliefs, experiences, and influences. The existence of God was significantly debated among philosophers during the 18th and 19th centuries and each esteemed philosopher had a distinct argument explaining their rationale, while criticizing another’s. In this paper, I will analyze William Paley’s argument, “The Teleological Argument,” and how it is disparaged by David Hume and his argument for apparent…
‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ Assess whether the existence of the universe requires God as a first cause?…
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.…
Throughout the course of time, many philosophers, dogmatic religions and even individual human beings themselves have tried to prove the existence of God. The recurrent question that constantly arises is whether or not you can prove the existence of God solely by rational thinking alone. To that, the answer is no. It is not possible to prove the existence of God solely by rational thinking as you also need to incorporate aspects of faith, but rational thinking helps solidify your beliefs pertaining to God and leaves the answers we cannot conceive rationally up to faith. You cannot understand something outside of your existence rationally because you cannot experience it or see it; you can only theorize, believe and trust in it. You will never be able to reason what you have no knowledge of. In this essay, I will argue that in…
In The Cosmological Argument Premise 2 explains that everything cannot be a dependent living thing. William Rowe explains why the Principle of Sufficient reason is true, then premise 2 is also true. Rowe suggests that there has never been a self-existing living thing, but only an infinite series of dependent living things. In this case, every living thing has an explanation, because it is explained if a living thing that came before it then that caused its existence.…
I do not find any of the traditional proofs for God’s existence persuasive, and I will go over each argument one at a time to explain why I do not find them persuasive, starting with Anselm’s ontological argument, then Aquinas’ cosmological argument, and finally Paley’s teleological argument. First, Anselm’s ontological argument is not persuasive because the argument can be used to prove things that do not exist. The faulty logic is shown in Gaunilo’s Lost Island Objection because instead of putting God as the thing to prove, Guanilo puts an island, and the logic still holds up. However, the argument does not hold up and would need more evidence or logical backing for why God works and the island does not. If someone says one is true, but the…
The existence of God is one of the greatly talked about philosophical topics throughout history. There have been many arguments proposed in order to answer the question. One argument is the ontological argument. The first person to propose the ontological argument is St. Anselm in the eleventh century. St. Anselm tries to prove the existence God from the idea of a being that which no greater being can be imagined. St. Anselm contemplated that, if such a being did not exist, then a more superior being can be thought of to…
The first piece of evidence I will be using to determine if there is an existence of God is the cosmological argument. The cosmological argument was famously publicised by St Thomas Aquinas and tries to prove the existence of God with three points, which are motion, causality and contingency: Motion, everything that moves must be moved by something else as nothing can move itself. There cannot be infinite regression…
There are 3 main arguments that each seek to prove the existence of God; the Ontological, Cosmological, and Teleological Arguments. Each is different in its approach, but all arrive at the same conclusion. Ontological Argument argues God’s existence from the assumption of the existence a “Greatest Thing that can ever be conceived.” From there, it argues that in order for something to be “The Greatest Thing ever” it must exist physically (that is outside of the mind). The Cosmological Argument argues that since everything in the universe is contingent (or is dependent on other things for its existence), there must be a first cause that set the universe in motion.…
The ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments collectively strive to prove one point, the existence of God. Ontological arguments lean on reasoning to prove its point of an a priori being or existence. Cosmological arguments focus on the idea that because there is this vast universe with an infinite amount of galaxies, God or a higher being, must have had a hand in creating the world and universe we live in. Teleological arguments emphasize on the idea that the universe was created solely to carry out the purpose or end result that it was designed for by…
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…
The cosmological argument for God’s existence differs from both the scriptural and ontological arguments in the way in which humans created it. Rather than looking at logical arguments or religious texts, the cosmological argument was derived because of humanity’s ability to project their need for cause onto the world. The cosmological argument is centered on the way in which we, humans in general, perceive there to be a need for a God due to the existence of the world around us.…