The Muslims who initiated the kalam cosmological argument believe that it is obvious that God is the cause for the universe and so they do not look for evidence instead they believe God simply is the answer. Furthermore, why shouldn’t the cause be Gods hands? William Craig would agree with this viewpoint as he says “It is so intuitively obvious that I think scarcely anyone could sincerely believe it to be false” suggesting that any cause other than God is false. The cosmological argument is a posterior argument this means that the argument is based on experience and is based upon the observation that every event has a cause. Everyone who exists sees the existence of the world and simultaneously sees the existence of a cause.
Since nothing can move of its own accord, and nothing can change itself, there had to be something else which has no cause and had the ability to initiate the Universe. Aquinas said that this entity without a cause and the power to create a Universe had to be an ‘Unmoved Mover/ Prime Mover’. He surmised that this Prime Mover had to be God. This argument has some positive points, in the fact that the natural occurrence of movement plus change have been brought into it, which makes the argument seem valid and plausible. However,
It was originally called fides quaerens intellectum (faith seeking understanding). ‘For I do not seek to understand that I believe, but I believe in order to understand’ – Proslogion 1. Anselm defined god as ‘that than which no greater can be conceived’. This is a priori accepted (no evidence). He then goes on to say that it is always greater to exist in reality (in re) than just in the mind (in intellectu).
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.
This prime mover is God. The Second Way is Cause. We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world. This proof depends on the self-evident principles that nothing can exist without a sufficient reason for its existence and that every effect must have a cause. Therefore nothing is the
Anselm’s argument is based on the idea that anyone who hears about God or thinks about God, has an idea of who God is. Even if a person denies the existence of God, he or she have to accept that God at least exists in a persons understanding, as an idea. Anselm argues that there is therefore the possibility of God existing purely in the mind alone, or alternatively in the mind and also in reality. Anselm defined God as “that…which nothing greater can be conceived”, he is all powerful, all-loving and all-knowing. Central to Anselm’s argument is the belief that it is greater to exist than not exist, and if God is the greatest-possible being, then by definition, God must exist.
He therefore comes to the conclusion that there must be a first mover that was not put in motion by something else, and states that this unmoved mover is understood to be God. God is therefore purely in an actual state. The second argument is very similar to the first one which is why they are so often grouped together. Aquinas states that nothing causes itself, and that all efficient causes follow an order however this cannot go on to infinity as there would be no first efficient cause. He therefore concludes that a first uncaused cause is necessary and this cause we know as God.
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'.
This thing starting the motion or change could be equated to God when comparing the domino analogy to Aquinas’ argument. Aquinas’ second way of arguing for the existence of God is causation. He argues that everything must be caused by something as nothing can cause itself (this would mean that it existed before it began, which is impossible). This must therefore mean that there is a first cause, a force that was the initial cause, not depending on anything else to come into existence, to be caused, implying that it caused itself. This means that there must be a
Explain Anselms ontological argument Part A The ontological argument is used as a rational explanation to support the existence of God. Anselms ontological argument is known as a “classic “explanation of the ontological argument and is used widely to support the existence of God. The ontological argument is a priori argument meaning that theories are developed to prove the existence of God using nothing but intellectual insight and reason: it does not depend upon our experience of the world to be verified. Anselm defines God by saying God is that “which nothing greater can be conceived.” A way to simplify this explanation is thinking of God as being the greatest thing there can be, i.e. defining God as maximal perfection, there literally cannot be anything greater than God as God is the greatest thing that can possibly exist.