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
Simply put, the fine-tuning argument contends that the universe was designed to ultimately create human beings. Fine-tuning is an argument which is able to contest one of the atheist’s own theories to disprove God. This will be explained in more detail later in this paper. In response to this, McCloskey says the cosmological argument “does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause.” As mentioned before, the cosmological argument is but one part of a concurrence for the existence of God. It does not prove God’s existence; it argues that there must be a necessary being which created the universe.
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.
Inclination essentially relinquishes scholarly objectivity. McCloskey contended that the cosmological argument was an argument from the presence of the world, as people know it. He expressed that having faith in an uncaused first cause for the universe is an issue in light of the fact that nothing about our universe powers us to that conclusion. The reason impact defense comprehends a connection between things that are in existence and will come
To incorporate both of these possible outcomes, the universe splits into two. In one universe the physicist measures the object in wave form, while in the other universe; the object is measured in particulate form. An important feature of this split, however, is that an individual is unaware of his existence in the alternate universe. Theoretically, this hypothesis is the exact opposite of the Copenhagen interpretation with the latter stating that mechanics is not associated with objective reality, and merely deals with the observation and measurement of energy which come under neither the established idea of particles nor that of waves (Faye 1). On the contrary, the Many-worlds hypothesis implies that reality is directly linked to the universal wave function and its implications which are therefore, applicable at a bigger level (Everett 109).
Although this possibility does not address the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” It supports certain finite causes. An infinite regress of causes for existence could have not started off from a first cause because the finite cause caused the first and a finite cause caused that find and so forth, meaning that the if you Consider C then you have to consider A because both possibilities acknowledge that there’s an infinite cause of existence. This possibility is implausible because it is already confirmed that the universe is finite and that a first finite cause caused the universe into being. This possibility infinitely fights off the problem of
THEOLOGY ESSAY A)EXPLAIN THE KEY IDEAS OF THE DESIGN ARGUMENT AND GIVE REASONS WHY SOME PHILOSOPHERS REJECTED THIS ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. The Design argument looks at the order and purpose, or telos, in the world and states that it implies that there must be a designer who made the world ‘just right’ for human existence. Religious believers go on to state that this designer is God. The argument states that if one uses one’s senses to look at order, such as gravity and the motion of the planets, which exists in the world, it is likely that one will accept that there is a designer God who created the world and gave it this order. Thus, the argument is a posteriori, based on experience, and inductive, containing a conclusion that
They can be physical parts or concepts (similar to Plato’s idea of the forms). Two main issues come up during discussions of cosmology; how the universe was created and out of what the universe was created. In the Theogony, Hesiod has the world created out of gods that are human by nature and to create this universe the gods reproduced. Hesiod’s theories of the universe can clearly be classified as myth, since there is no scientific background for it. The philosophers to follow Hesiod moved slightly away from this.
The teleological theory offers no scientific evidence, or evidence of any kind for the creation of the universe, it is based loosely on an analogy. The analogy opinion is too broad to be valid. I believe that things like volcanos and earthquakes that happen naturally are better explained by science. These things seem more probable in a universe that was created randomly by science, by the big bang, than if the universe was created specifically for a certain function by
Moore’s “Proof of an External World” I believe that philosopher G.E. Moore’s “Proof of an External World” was somewhat successful in explaining there being an external world, however I have reason to believe that his proof cannot be taken for granted by using logic and physics. While there are flaws to his argument, he responds to those flaws with a rebuttal, and makes the person think if they can be certain about anything in existence. Moore’s argument can be simply put that; P1) he has a right hand and he has a left hand, P2) both of the hands are external objects in the world, C) An external world exists. Moore believes this is a legitimate argument based on his criteria for a proof.