...ACCEPT OR REJECT THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS AS PROVIDING RATIONALLY CONVINCING ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. PHIL 3431: Introduction to Philosophy of Religion November 20th, 2012 The Cosmological Argument The cosmological argument is considered to be the relationship between the existence of the world or universe and the existence of a being that created this world or universe and maintains its existence. According to many studies, the cosmological argument comes in two forms: the modal cosmological arguments and the temporal kalam cosmological arguments. The modal cosmological argument The modal cosmological argument, also known as the argument from contingency, suggest that the universe existence requires an explanation. In other words, there must be a cause that can explain why the universe exists now. The modal cosmological argument places the universe as a contingent being. A contingent being is something that requires a cause of existence. On the contrary, the cosmological argument explains a second type of being: a necessary being. A necessary being is something that does not require an explanation or cause of its existence, a being that could not have failed to exist. In conclusion, the ultimate cause of everything that exist must then be a necessary being. The modal cosmological argument places this necessary being in God’s existence. The modal cosmological argument bases on the following premises: 1. If something exists, what it takes for that...
Words: 2119 - Pages: 9
...McCLOSKEY PHIL 201-D10 FALL 2011 DR. EDWARD MARTIN BY IVAN DERRICK COOKE Cooke 2 INTRODUCTION In 1968, atheist philosopher H.J. McCloskey composed a strong argument on how being an atheist was far superior to the theistic lifestyle. This imperious article was published in the journal Question and reflects McCloskey’s view that “atheism is a much more comfortable belief than theism, and why theists should be miserable just because they are theists.”1 In his article, McCloskey seeks to disprove many of the arguments that theists believe and often seemingly ridicules or persecutes those who believe in God. Among the arguments McCloskey attempts to minimalize, there are three common proofs that many, if not all, theists lean on for their belief in God. These proofs include the cosmological proof, the teleological proof, and the argument from design. Furthermore, McCloskey speaks on the problem of evil and how the existence of evil disproves the reality of a God. Near the end of McCloskey’s article, he also insists that atheism is comforting, claiming that it is more comforting than theism. This paper will debate the validity and truth of the three claims that McCloskey seeks to discount in his article and will further debate the problem of evil and disprove the idea that atheism is comforting. PROOFS VS. ARGUMENTS ------------------------------------------------- McCloskey often slights the theistic view as one of vagueness and ignorance. He states, when referring to...
Words: 2514 - Pages: 11
...That is the question we face! For many years Theists and Atheist have debated this question for many years along with their central views and beliefs that we as human being rely on as it relates to Life and God. The Point of views and debates center around the Cosmological Argument, the Teleological argument (argument from Design) and the most debated argument as it relates to this topic called the Problem with evil? When questioning wither or not God Exist these traditional arguments play significant roles in investigating and proving or discrediting someone’s view or stance on this specific Philosophical belief. As you read McCloskey article “On Being an Atheist” he argues the Theist stance who believe in the Existence of God from the perspective view of an Atheist. McCloskey in writing this Article is not trying to discredit their belief in the Existence of God, but to raise questions, doubts and uncertainties concerning their arguments on which they stand on to prove their belief by ultimately concluding that the Theist arguments are not valid and should be disregarded as evidence to prove their belief in the existence of God. The problem with McCloskey argument against the argument of Theistic View is the Theist argument is not to literally prove their belief concretely on the existence of God, but there view is design to give us what is called “Best Explanation”. According to Forman Best Explanation “is to Arrive at a view you can live with, to discover which view offer the...
Words: 2421 - Pages: 10
...Examine the cosmological argument for the existence of God. The cosmological argument is an a posteriori argument which intends to prove that there is an intelligent being that exists; the being is distinct from the universe, explains the existence of the universe, and is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent. The basic notion of cosmological arguments is that the world and everything in it is dependent on something other than itself for its existence. It explains that everything has a cause, that there must have been a first cause, and that this first cause was itself uncaused. Many philosophers have explored the cosmological argument, including Aquinas, in much depth, through his Five Ways in the Summa Theologica. Thomas Aquinas rejected the ontological argument of Anselm, saying that had it been convincing, the existence of God would be self-evident to everyone. He argued that the fact people deny God’s existence is proof enough that it is not in fact self evident. Aquinas believed from faith that God existed and he believed that the real world contained enough evidence for this; Aquinas wrote the Five Ways in order to prove his beliefs. Each ‘way’ of the Five Ways is an exercise of reason, not of faith; they are the classical exposition of natural theology. The first three of the five ways are based on the cosmological argument. The first way that Aquinas proposed to support the cosmological argument regarded the ‘unmoved mover’; he stated that...
Words: 1393 - Pages: 6
...Name Professor Course Date Philosophy Free will can be termed as the ability of agents to make choices with no constrains of different dynamic factors. This principle of free will has implications on religion, legal and ethical factors among others. Philosophers since time immemorial have debated extensively on the existence or the nonexistence of free will in nature.one of this philosophical figure is David Hume, he maintains that humans are free because of decisions and their actions. This is so because though determined, they are determined by our individual motives. He demonstrated that determinism is a very integral part to the existence of individual free will. This therefore means that because our actions being determined causally by our motives and character human beings are morally responsible and are free willed. This then becomes a point of objection because if everything is caused, then what we decide is itself caused. Hume argues that human motives and desire is the Couse of their decisions. Determinism argument is not that we are free but that free will exists. The other philosopher who contributed this debate is Thomas Hobbes. He had a slightly different view on determinism and free will from those held by Hume. He said that God is the ultimate origin of every action, but if humans are not physically required to do any action, there is free will. Hobbes developed his thesis in name of liberty vs. necessity, as opposed free will vs. outwardly determined will. The...
Words: 1165 - Pages: 5
...Response Paper McCloskey Article Liberty University Philosophy 201 Fall 2013 H.J. McCloskey (1968) in his article on being an Atheist aimed to prove atheism a more viable belief than the Christian worldview. McCloskey disputed the three theistic proofs: the cosmological argument, the teleological argument and the argument from design. McCloskey called attention to the presence of evil in a world made by God. He went further saying that it was nonsensical to live by faith. McCloskey contended that proofs were not the reason that people have faith in God but rather people come to rely on religion because of other circumstances in life. In spite of this, the three arguments, show great validity in supporting the God of Christianity’s existence. Examining this from the cumulative case point, there is no for sure argument that supports the existence of God of Christianity but, placing all viewpoints together cumulatively, the case is quite formidable. The Cosmological argument contends that the creator of the universe, the cosmos, is God and God alone. The Teleological Argument expresses an intelligent creator and the argument of morality display how God is an interpersonal, morally flawless God. This supporting information gives some clarity of how the universe was created. According to McCloskey the Cosmological argument has many flaws because it is only based upon the world as we know it. From McCloskey’s perspective, just because the universe exists, doesn’t necessarily...
Words: 1458 - Pages: 6
...The Cosmological Argument The cosmological argument is reasonable proof for the existence of God, with involving components of reasons including the fact that whatever begins to exist has a cause, no thing has placed itself in motion, and that everything that exists is either contingent or necessary. The Cosmological Argument involves many sub-arguments that help validate it and prove that it is correct. One of these arguments is entitled the ‘Kalam Cosmological Argument’. This argument is used to prove that there was a beginning in time, by saying that an infinite number of days has no end, but today is the current end in history right now. If there were an infinite number of days, it would be impossible for today to have occurred. This involves the...
Words: 1120 - Pages: 5
...The cosmological argument (i) Examine the view that the cosmological argument provides an explanation for the world and is a trustworthy basis for belief in the existence of God. (21) The cosmological argument, also known as the first cause argument, is a classical argument for the existence of God. The word cosmological comes from the Greek for order and it is an inductive argument as the premises are true but the conclusion may not be, and it is also synthetic where the truth is determined by experience and needs to be proven. It is also a posteriori and also based on natural theology. The Cosmological argument finds its answer for the start of the universe through causes, meaning everything is caused by something, or everything is dependent on something else. The argument attempts to find proof for God’s existence stating that as something cannot come from nothing God must exist in order for anything and everything else to exist. The origins of the cosmological argument come from Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle. Plato 428-347 BC records one of the earliest versions of the Cosmological arguments in his book of ‘Laws’. Plato writes about the argument through an exchange between an Athenian and Clianis. The Athenian attempts to prove the existence of the gods by arguing that, of all the different types of motion, the motion “which can move itself” is “necessarily the earliest and mightiest of all changes”. It is clear from his argument that infinite regress...
Words: 1053 - Pages: 5
...McCloskey disputed the three theistic proofs: the cosmological argument, the teleological argument and the argument from design. McCloskey called attention to the presence of evil in a world made by God. He went further saying that it was nonsensical to live by faith. McCloskey contended that proofs were not the reason that people have faith in God but rather people come to rely on religion because of other circumstances in life. In spite of this, the three arguments, show great validity in supporting the God of Christianity’s existence. Examining this from the cumulative case point, there is no for sure argument that supports the existence of God of Christianity but, placing all viewpoints together cumulatively, the case is quite formidable. The Cosmological argument contends that the creator of the universe, the cosmos, is God and God alone. The Teleological Argument expresses an intelligent creator and the argument of morality display how God is an interpersonal, morally flawless God. This supporting information gives some clarity of how the universe was created. According to McCloskey the Cosmological argument has many flaws because it is only based upon the world as we know it. From McCloskey’s perspective, just because the universe exists, doesn’t necessarily mean that there is a greater being responsible for it. Nor does he think that that an omnipotent being created the world in which he lives. If we examine the Philosophy of Religion, the contingency of the universe backs...
Words: 1448 - Pages: 6
...God. However, Atheism holds to a belief that there is no afterlife only an end of all existence. With this in mind and there being various religious aspects we must ponder the question, how can humanity reject or disallow the everlasting father, the one true God? Many are the disputes for and against the existence of a God and many have proven to be confusing and misguided to say the least but do propose strong arguments that should be understood. An article by Australian philosopher H. J. McCloskey titled, “On Being an Atheist” presents a seemingly very compelling pro-atheist argument. McCloskey wastes no time and opens his article by explaining the flawed belief systems of theism. Although there are a other arguments to be considered in formulating a solid perspective McCloskey chooses to remain in the scope of three, the Cosmological, Teleological and the argument of design. Cosmological arguments endeavor to surmise the existence of God through the universe or cosmos and are sometimes referred to as first cause arguments. Beginning with the Cosmological argument he attempts to persuade his readers against this theory stating that it is deficient because it relates to a first cause and theists would have one believe that the first cause is an “all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause”, referring to the self existing God and...
Words: 1594 - Pages: 7
...Explain how the existence of God may be proved by Cosmological arguments (30) There are many arguments that can be displayed to provide evidence for the existence of God. The cosmological argument, also known as the first cause argument, is a posteriori argument. This means that the evidence used to prove the argument can be observed by anyone, which makes the argument more accessible and user friendly. The argument is also an inductive argument, which means that it can have many possible conclusions; not necessarily God. This argument is a strong argument, which tries to deduce the existence of God through cause and effect. It’s based upon the principle that everything must have been caused by something in order to exist. The cosmological argument has long history, going back to the philosophers of Plato, Aristotle and Leibniz. All of these philosophers may have had different ideas about God, although they all agreed that the universe is not self-explanatory and must have had a sole cause in order for it to come into existence. Plato was an Ancient Greek Philosopher who was considered as the father of modern philosophy. In fact, one of the earliest forms of a cosmological argument was found in Plato’s writings: Timaeus and The Laws. In The Laws, we see the argument for the existence of God being proposed as the very fact that the universe exists and it also goes on to discuss the principles of change and motion. Plato is proposing the necessity of a ‘self moved’ mover, implying...
Words: 1328 - Pages: 6
...McCloskey H.J. McCloskey attempted to contradict the arguments proving Gods existence used by theists in the article “On Being an Atheist”. Although there is no sufficient proof in the cosmological argument of their being a perfect creator, it does however provide evidence of a singular being. The evidence of an almighty creator is provided by the simple element of complex design. However, though this almighty creator allows the existence of evil in the world, He was not the one to create it, and, as such, has a purpose behind its existence. The existence of God can be logically concluded, contrary to McCloskey’s beliefs, using the philosophical inquiry. McCloskey refers to the cosmological, teleological, and design arguments throughout his article, and discuss how theists use them to prove the existence of God. McCloskey may, perhaps, believe that these arguments are unsuccessful because his different beliefs allow his approach to be different. Contrary to proof, these aspects of cosmological, teleological, and design are more accurately represented when used as evidence or as simply arguments. Dr. Mark Foreman describes proof, in his presentation of “Approaching the Questions of God’s Existence”, as something that involves a characteristic of complete certainty. As McCloskey refers to the many arguments as “proof” he implies that the arguments are thought to be facts of absolute truth. If this were true, than these arguments would have to be accepted and believed by all individuals...
Words: 1717 - Pages: 7
...to be seriously considered. In this paper I will argue for the sake that God does exist and the reasons why. I will include many of the arguments found in our philosophy book and those covered in class as well as other subjects such as human suffering and the reasons God chose to make the world as it is today, also including examples from life and the movies we watched in class. St. Thomas Aquinas had many arguments for the existence of God and one of those was the fifth way. In the argument of the fifth way Aquinas says “The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore, some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God”. Here St. Thomas Aquinas is basically saying that the existence of order and apparent purpose in the universe is best explained by saying that an intellectual being caused it. A good example of this argument is if we were to look at the planets in our solar system. The planets being inanimate objects couldn’t have possible placed themselves...
Words: 1494 - Pages: 6
...Regarding the Cosmological Argument The goal of the cosmological argument is to support the claim that God exists as the first cause of the universe. According to Nagel, the argument runs as following: (P1) Every event must have a cause. (P2) If every event must have a cause, event A must have a cause B, which in turn must have a cause C, and so on. (P3) There is no end to this backward progression of causes. (C1) This backward progression of causes will be an infinite series of event. (P4) An infinite series of events is unintelligible and absurd. (P5) The existence of the universe does not result from an unintelligible and absurd process. (P6) The existence of the universe does not result from an infinite series of events. (C2) The existence of the universe must have a first cause. (P7) This first cause is God. (C3) God is the initiator of all change in the universe. Now I will introduce Nagel’s objection to the cosmological argument. For the sake of argument, Nagel presupposes the cosmological argument’s premise P1 “every event must have a cause” as true. With that in mind, Nagel presents his objection, which I have paraphrased in two parts. Nagel argues in the first part of his objection that if every event must have a cause, God should also need one for his existence, since there must be something that initially caused God to exist. However, this would again begin the infinite backward progression of causes, since the existence of that which caused God’s existence...
Words: 1564 - Pages: 7
...The essay will explain the philosophers view points on the religion of God. There are a few arguments of which existence is the strongest. It will explain many aspects on science and religion, atheism, moral and human freedom on God’s existence. Believing in God and believing in God’s existence can have many aspects with different views from philosophers, the arguments will explain which philosopher is more compelling than the other. When it comes to the existence of God, some philosophers believe that it is necessary to have proof and some believe that proof is not necessary if we have faith. One philosopher named, Thomas Aquinas believed that God is from faith and first cause is the proof of God. Let’s take a look at what Thomas had to say, “that the existence of God is not demonstrable: that God's existence is an article of faith, and that articles of faith are not demonstrable, because the office of demonstration is to prove, but faith pertains (only) to things that are not to be proven, as is evident from the Epistle to the Hebrews, 11.” (Paul Halsall, 1988.) Therefore, I don’t believe that we need proof of God’s existence. I agree with Thomas that God is faith. No, proving God’s existence is not necessary because God is faith, we have to believe in God to have the faith, If we do not believe in God then we might try to prove him, but will not get anywhere. There are arguments on the existence of God. The ontological proof explains a good reason why it’s necessary...
Words: 1578 - Pages: 7
