Cosmological Argument For The Existence Of God example essay topic

Arguments for the Existence for God 1. The Cosmological Argument for the existence of God is based on the principle of cause and effect. What this basically means is that the universe was the effect of a cause, which was God. One of the oldest and most well known advocates of the Cosmological Argument was Thomas Aquinas who outlines his argument for the existence of God in his article entitled The Five Ways. The first way in his argument is deals with motion.

Aquinas says that in order for something to be in motion something had to move it because it is impossible for something to move without the presence of some sort of outside force upon it. Therefore the world around us, nature, and our very existence could not have been put into motion without the influence of the "unmoved mover", as it is called in the book, who we know to be God. Aquinas's e cond way to prove that God exists is by stating that nothing can be the cause of itself. For example, I am not the cause of myself.

I would not be in existence today if it were not for my parents having a baby and naming it Chris. This is true for everything around us: trees, buildings, cars, planes, etc, none of these can be the cause of themselves. They all must be created or manufactured from seeds, humans, and machines in order for them to exist as they do today. The next way comes from possibility and necessity. First is possibility which means that it is possible for everything in the world to at some point in time not exist, thus meaning that there was a time when nothing existed and since something cannot come from nothing it is necessary for something to have always existed. However as Aquinas previously stated this necessary being cannot be the cause of itself plus there cannot be a time at which it did not exist therefore this being must have always existed and be God.

In his fourth way Aquinas bases the existence of God on the gradation of things such as things being the greatest or the smallest, the hottest or the coldest. Aquinas says that there must be a cause of this and it is God. The last way that Aquinas proves God comes from the governance of the world. Aquinas says that things in the world lack knowledge and yet they still work their way towards an end, but he says that it is impossible for something to lack knowledge and work its way to an end.

Due to this fact Aquinas determines that there must be some intelligent being directing all natural things towards their end and that this being is God. After reading Aquinas' argument some would agree, some would disagree, and some would say it could be better by... and list reasons. Clarke and Rowe are two of the later type. Clarke believed that the universe was a series of events and that each of these events are dependent upon the event before it.

So as you work your way backwards down the chain you get to an independent event that started the whole series who Clarke said is God. In Rowe's argument he says that there has to be PSR (principle of sufficient reason) in order to prove anything including God. Which means there has to be enough evidence and proof that a thing or God exists. In my understanding of the Cosmological Argument I would have to say that I agree the most with Clarke's explanation. Not only is it short and sweet but it almost takes Aquinas' argument and folds it up and puts it in its pocket.

I think believe it is much clearer for anyone to see and admit that everything that happens in this world is connected and caused by previous events and decisions. Due to this anyone can go back to the story of Adam and Eve and ask themselves the question of what caused these two? It is at this point where one is forced to admit that there is an "unmoved mover", an independent being, and an uncaused cause who is called God. 3. Out of all three arguments for the existence only one of them is based on an a priori knowledge and it is the Ontological Argument. This argument is based on the knowledge that God does exist.

In St. Anselm's presentation of the Ontological Argument he argues that God is the greatest being and that none greater can be conceived. Therefore in our little minds we are incapable to comprehend what God is truly like. Due to this the person who says that God does not exist is in a sense right. The God that the person has in their mind, like they say, does not exist because it is not God because they cannot conceive the real God. Anselm differentiates between the God that exists in understanding and the God that exists in reality. According to Anselm God exists in our understanding as the greatest being but we cannot truly understand just how great he is.

He also says that obviously God exists in reality. Basically what it is is that Anselm uses a giant tongue twister to convince someone that God exists. In response to Anselm's presentation a man named Gaunilo writes him a letter criticizing Anselm's argument. Gaunilo does this by using reductio ad absurdum. Gaunilo comes up with the concept of a perfect island in the ocean and if someone came up to him and tried to explain this perfect island Gaunilo would have no problem understanding the island.

According to Anselm if this happened his concept of the island would have been destroyed and Gaunilo believes that to be a joke. He thinks that Anselm's reasoning is ridiculous and that if someone were to try to use that logic to explain God to him he would laugh in his face. Although these arguments may prove their point in a construed way there are some who believe the Ontological Argument to be impossible, one of these being Kant. Kant believes that the argument fails right off the bat by basing everything on the idea that God does exist. Kant believes that it is wrong to assume that God has all of these magnificent characteristics that Anselm believes Him to have. Kant questions how Anselm proves this.

My view of these arguments and the Ontological argument as a whole is that it is a weak argument. If I had to choose sides between Anselm or Gaunilo and Kant I think I would choose Gaunilo and Kant because they do a better job of arguing their point. If I were questioning the existence of God and had Anselm's argument to read and then Kant's to read I would probably end up ton believing that God existed. One reason being that you cannot understand Anselm's argument and two he does not prove anything but the fact that God is a supreme being than which no greater can be conceived. It is because of this why I believe the Ontological argument to be a bad way to prove God to anyone.