Although, these three arguments all agree in the way that they use unfound assumptions to prove what has yet to be proven; they do disagree on the studies of how to prove what really is God. The ontological argument believes that God is a “being”. The cosmological argument believes that God is “the universe”. Then there is the design argument which needs evidence to prove that there is a God. The Ontological argument seeks to prove that God does exist by proving, that He cannot not exist.
Copleston put forward a defines with was based on some ideas of the third way of Aquinas’ ways. Russell disagreed with Copleston’s argument and suggested that the universe was not explainable in the way Copleston described. In their debate was the issue of contingency and necessity and a reason to explain why anything exists. Copleston explained Leibniz’s “Principle of Sufficient Reason”, which is the claim that there has to be a full explanation for everything. There are things in the world that do not have the reason or cause of their existence, this mean that some things in the world are contingent - they might have no existed.
Anselm’s Ontological Argument states that one understands that God, as a being, cannot be conceived a greater. Anselm uses this psychology that if we conceive of such a being’s existence only in the understanding, a greater being could be conceived and also exists in reality (Anselm, p.169). He also goes on to say that it’s contradictory because we cannot conceive a greater being than God that it must exist (Anselm, p.169). Anselm then moves on to the admission that since one understands the concept of a being that cannot conceive a greater; God cannot be understood not to exist (Anselm, p.169). One example that Anselm used to back up his argument was a painter.
He also says there are a chain of causes and effects leading back to the beginning of the Universe. He did not believe in infinite regress, and so, for him, there had to be a first cause, and that first cause has to be God. Aquinas’ Cosmological argument has many positive points which could be used to prove the existence of God, and his argument is both logical and convincing. However, I believe there are some major flaws within it, and I hope to use these flaws to show that Aquinas’ Cosmological argument does not prove the existence of a God. The first point to Thomas Aquinas’ Cosmological argument is about Motion.
KEY FEATURES OF THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT – MODEL ANSWER The cosmological argument is a posteriori argument for the existence of God. The term ‘cosmological argument’ refers to the procedure of arguing from the cosmos, or world, to the existence of God. Since the argument is based on experience of the world it is a posteriori in character. The overall aim of the cosmological argument is for man to look at the universe and explain it is not self-explanatory. Rather we need to ask the question about its origin, nature and purpose.
Liberty univerity online | A Disagreement to McCloskey’s Theist View and Why Atheism is Better | A look at why McCloskey’s proof and evidence of God’s non-existence is false from a theist view. | | Troy Shepherd | 3/1/2015 | Phil 201 McCloskey reminds atheist why theism is wrong and why atheists are correct to believe in no God or any supreme being is argued from a theist approach and understanding. | INTRODUCTION In 1968, McCloskey wrote an article which he stated was to “remind fellow atheist (McCloskey, 1968)” why atheist believe in no God and why God doesn’t exist. Did McCloskey find the need to remind other atheist why they don’t believe in a higher being such as God, was he losing other fellow atheist to the “other side” or was he simply reminding himself of why he didn’t believe? Only McCloskey knows why he wrote this article with his reasons for not believing as he did write this piece as if he had been appointed to provide why and what their foundational arguments are against theists’ beliefs in God.
This argument became known as Pascal’s Wager. If we examine Paley’s argument in Natural Theology, we see that it is not a good argument for the existence of G-d. It makes a jump from a designer of the universe to the assumption that this designer is somehow the Omni-G-d without any proof. Nevertheless, from Paley’s invalid argument we can create an argument that shows the existence of a designer of the universe. Through the idea of irreducible complexity, we see that there must be designer to the universe.
A teleological or design argument[1][2][3] is an a posteriori argument for the existence of God based on apparent design and purpose in the universe. The argument is based on an interpretation of teleology wherein purpose and design appear to exist in nature beyond the scope of any such human activities. The teleological argument suggests that, given this premise, the existence of a designer can be assumed, typically presented as God. Various concepts of teleology originated in ancient philosophy and theology. Some philosophers, such as Plato, proposed a divine Artificer as the designer; others, including Aristotle, rejected that conclusion in favor of a more naturalistic teleology.
Assess how far the cosmological argument proves that God exists (15 mark) Russell opposed to the cosmological argument as evidence for the existence of God. He added that Copleston was making a fallacy of composition, just because humans have a mother it does not mean the universe had to have a mother. The universe does not have to have a beginning. Russell is supporting the possibility of infinite regress or suggested that there may be no explanation for the universe. The universe may have always existed and that this is a 'brute fact'.
In his article, “The Cosmological Argument”, William Rowe discusses the eighteenth-century form of the cosmological argument and argues that it does not provide one with good rational grounds for the belief in god, being that it failed in its first part to provide one with good rational grounds for believing that there is a self-existent being. The three premises of the Cosmological Argument are, 1) every being (that exists or ever did exist) is either a dependent being or a self-existent being, 2) not every being can be a dependent being, 3) there exists a self-existent being. The Cosmological Argument is justified by the “Principle of Sufficient Reason” which states “there must be an explanation (a) of the existence of any being, and (b) of any positive fact whatever” (40). Rowe ends up with his conclusion by discussing the arguments deductive validity, PSR and the first premise, the second premise, critics’ objections to the second premise, his responses to the objections, and the truth of PSR. Rowe begins his argument by first stating that the cosmological argument is a posteriori argument which means the “argument depends on a principle or premise that can be known only by means of our experience of the world” (38).