Examine the cosmological argument for the existence of God. – 25Marks The cosmological argument is an argument which proves the existence of the first cause; the first cause is ’motion’. In which everything that exists is in motion or has the potential to change. Meaning all change is caused by something, as nothing can more by itself therefore there must be a necessary being, like a God. The cosmological argument is a posteriori argument and also a deductive argument; this is because it is based on logical thinking about the existence of God.
How successful is the teleological argument in proving the existence of God? The teleological argument is an a posteriori argument: it tries to justify the existence of God by asking “Why are we here?” Is it due to design or chance? The argument goes as far back as the days of Cicero and has been objected by the likes of Charles Darwin. One of the first known teleological arguments is the argument from analogy, which is argued by William Paley and Aquinas. Paley believes that some natural objects display design like qualities- they display a fitness to purpose.
Explain the different understandings of the role of God which are found in Aquinas’ cosmological argument The cosmological argument was not set about to prove the existence or the role of God. The initial purpose of the cosmological argument was to answer the question ‘How did the universe come into existence?’ The role of God isn’t totally explained within the cosmological argument, but characteristics about the role of God are found in various variations of the cosmological argument. Aquinas’s three ways establish many of these codes and characteristics. The God mentioned in each of the cosmological arguments is the God of classical theism. Each of Aquinas’s three ways established a different role of God.
Critically assess the Cosmological argument for the existence of God. The Cosmological argument infers an existence of a God from looking at the cosmos and the phenomena within it. Many philosophers and prominent thinkers have either rejected the claim that the creator of the universe is God, or have refuted St Thomas Aquinas’ thinking and reasoning in his 3 ways of proving Gods existence which constitutes the cosmological argument; as outlined in ‘Summa Theologica’. These criticisms are what I am going to be examining throughout this essay. One of Aquinas’ ways of proving God’s existence; ‘the uncaused causer’, states that every cause in the universe has an effect, the chain of cause and effect must have a terminus to avoid infinite regress.
In this essay I am going to focus on Anselm ontological argument and comment on its strengths and weakness of his argument to prove the existence of God. Anselm’s ontological argument can be seen as a Reductio ad absurdum, which means it is a logical argument that aims to prove contention by demonstrating that its denial leads to absurdity. Anselm’s argument explains that it is contradictory for someone to accept that God to exist in understanding and not in reality. This is because according to the existence of perfection a doctrine that something is greater if it exists in addition t being thought of, and God is greater than which nothing can be thought therefore He has to exist in both understanding and reality. The argument goes like this: 1.
Cosmological Argument The cosmological argument is a posteriori argument because it is a on what can be seen in the world and the universe * The argument is based on the belief that there is a first cause behind the existence of the universe. * The argument was first developed by Plato and Aristotle. * Thomas Aquinas has developed the most popular version of the cosmological argument. He developed his five ways to prove the existence of God in his book Summa Theologica. The first of the three ways form proof for the existence of God and are Change (or motion), Cause and Contingency.
Therefore it would be suggested that the universe can be used as evidence for the existence of an omnipotent god. In addition to this, this idea of the paradox of the stone highlights the argument on whether the universe can be used as evidence to suggest that god is omnipotent. It suggests that if god was to create a stone he cannot life, then he would no longer be omnipotent. However, if god was only omnipotent only
J. Ayer claimed that to speak of a designed universe is meaningless. Unless we could say what the world would have been like without a designer, we cannot reach the conclusion that this world is designed. Who establishes that there is beneficial order in the universe? How do we argue from that to the conclusion that god has designed it? Swinburne counted this by claiming that the order in the universe does require an explanation.
Anselm’s Ontological Argument The philosopher Anselm of Canterbury’s ontological argument debates the existence of God to be very much true. Anselm concepts God as a being in which nothing greater can be conceived. He also iterates that this being is too the greatest that one can possibly imagine. Therefore, for God to be the ideal concept of perfection, he must too in fact exist in reality and not just the mind, as in the understanding. An atheist, whom may not believe that God actually exists in reality, surely understands the concept of what God is so he then exists in his understanding.
Existence is a part of perfection. While the ontological argument can be approached without the use of consciousness or awareness, cosmological and teleological arguments require a closer focus on the cause and the design of the universe. In earlier years Plato, then Aristotle stressed the cosmological argument as cause and motion, whereas Thomas Aquinas’ concept focused on life having a cause or a starting point. According to his premise the universe is a series of causes and the first cause would be what everyone understands to be God. This concept leads to other debates that mock the well-known adage “Which comes first, the chicken or the egg”.