Outline the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God (21)

Outline the cosmological financial statement for the live onence of beau vagaryl (21) The Cosmological argument is an argument that attempts to prove the existence of God, it is also know as the causation argument which argues that as all events require a manage, if the earthly concern is an event it must have a cause and that cause is God. The argument is a posteriori because its based on evidence that already exists in the universe. The cosmological argument is also inductive because the conclusion is what is most probable, it is also synthetic because the truth john only be determined by experience. Cosmological comes from the Greek words kosmos and logos translated as cosmos identical with universe and Logos meaning blueprint or plan. Therefore, cosmogony refers to the blueprint of the universe. The Cosmological argument originated from Plato and Aristotle however it was mainly later create by St. Thomas doubting Thomas. Their arguments both began with the idea that motion ineluctably a prior agency. Plato wherefore identified the startle cause of the compass of events as the need for an unmoved mover which started off the range of mountains.Aquinas main argument is well known as Aquinas third way the argument from contingency and necessity. The freshman of Aquinas ship force outal was from motion, this follows the idea that all objects move and a change of note is movement. Nothing can move itself, which then leads to the idea of a chain of movement but the chain cannot be infinate, therfor there must be an unmoved mover to begin the chain. This first mover is God. The second of Aquinas ways was from efficiant causes, this follows the idea that all things are caused by whatsoeverthing else because they cant cause themselves or they would exist before themselves.However this would mean that there cant be an non-finite chain of causes, meaning there must be a inaugural cause that caused all causes, then this 1st cause is God. The th ird of Aquinas ways is from contingency and necessity. This follows the idea that everything is hooked of factors outside itself, therefor everything is contingent upon(p). If this is correct then there must be a necessary being upon which everything is dependant on. The necessary being is God.Another part to the cosmological argument is the Kalam argument which was developed by Al Ghazali and recently developed by Craig. The Kalam argument rejects the idea of an actual infinite because an actual infinite past of the universe is impossible. Craig developed the Kalam argument and added that it is logically unsound to propose an infinite series because for this to in reality occur we would have to have travelled an infinite length of clock time and so still wouldnt be in the present yet.However, some would reexamine Aquinas theory, for example Hick pokes holes in aquinass three ways. Hick says that Aquinas present us with two alternatives that the universe is either a fact, or there is a first cause. Aquinas argument can only be proven if there is evidence of a first cause of the universe. (ii )Consider the view that the strengths are more convincing than the weaknesses (9) Leibniz argued that there had to be a sufficient reason for the universe to exist which supports Aquinass theory.Leibniz says that even if the universe had always been in existence, it would still require an explanation for its existence so we can establish that there is something rather than nothing. Since there is nothing deep down the universe to show why it exists the reason must therefor exist outside of it. However Hume dis corresponds with Aquinas and observes that to arrive at the existance of god from the exposit of the cosmological argument, this requires an inductive leap which ineffectively guesses without having actual evidence that allows for the effrontery to be made.This then means that you cannot assimilate an inductive leap or so the universe because we cannot ma ke conclusions about something outside our exerience. In contrast to Hume copelston suports Aquinas rejection of infinite regress based on the idea that an infinite chain of contingent beings would only consist of contingent beings therefor meaning they could never be able to bring themselves into existence. However like Hume, Mackie disagrees with Aquinas inductive leap by stating hat everything at some time must exist to at some point sometime everything does not exist here there is a get overlap of things that just dont make sense to put after eachother as there is clearly something missing in the middle. Taking these points into consideration we can make the assumption that the weaknesses are in actual fact stronger than the strengths because the strenghts agree with the inductive leap aquinas has made, however the leap clearly looks as if something in the middle is missing as you just cant make an assumption on something bigger than us that we have no expience of.