COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT: MAKING THE BELIEF IN GOD RATIONAL
TOPIC: Of the arguments for the existence of God (the cosmological [first cause] argument and the teleological [design] argument found in Hume, and the ontological argument of Anselm), which is the best in your view? What is the structure of the argument? What is a potential objection to the argument? Is there an adequate response to that objection? Is the argument sufficient to make belief in God rational? Why or why not? When comparing Demea’s cosmological argument, Anselm 's ontological argument, and Hume’s teleological argument, I believe the cosmological argument presented by Demea is the sufficient argument in making the belief of the philosopher 's God (all powerful, all …show more content…
The first opposition he brings upon the cosmological argument is that “Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary applies a contradiction.” This opposing argument says that if we conceive something to exist, we also conceive that thing to not exist; and there is no bring in which its existence implies a contradiction. If this is the case, then there is no being thats existence proves to be necessary. Cleanthes also asks “Why may not the material universe be the necessarily existent Being, according to this pretended explication of necessity?” (Cleanthes, First Philosophy, pg.80.) This argument is bringing to light the question of whether or not we can assume we know God’s properties, if we in fact cannot settle on exactly what the philosopher 's God can or cannot do. There may be an attribute of God’s that makes his existence necessary that we simply are unaware of and cannot dismiss. The last opposing argument Cleanthes presents is him objecting that “it is absurd to seek a cause for an external succession.” This is because if we are seeking for a cause for an infinite causal chain, than we are assuming there was a cause for the external succession. If we assume there is a cause, there must have been a cause for that one as well, which cannot be possible seeing as the chain is already infinite and there was no beginning. Therefore, a causal chain simply cannot have a cause. The final argument opposing Demea’s cosmological argument is Cleanthes saying that the parts not need represent its whole. This means that something may not appear similar to its earlier state and if every effect is explained correctly by its proceeding cause, then there need not to be a cause for the infinite chain of every effect. I do see the logic in Cleanthes objections and I do agree with his objections in regards to the argumentation of the cosmological argument. When
TOPIC: Of the arguments for the existence of God (the cosmological [first cause] argument and the teleological [design] argument found in Hume, and the ontological argument of Anselm), which is the best in your view? What is the structure of the argument? What is a potential objection to the argument? Is there an adequate response to that objection? Is the argument sufficient to make belief in God rational? Why or why not? When comparing Demea’s cosmological argument, Anselm 's ontological argument, and Hume’s teleological argument, I believe the cosmological argument presented by Demea is the sufficient argument in making the belief of the philosopher 's God (all powerful, all …show more content…
The first opposition he brings upon the cosmological argument is that “Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary applies a contradiction.” This opposing argument says that if we conceive something to exist, we also conceive that thing to not exist; and there is no bring in which its existence implies a contradiction. If this is the case, then there is no being thats existence proves to be necessary. Cleanthes also asks “Why may not the material universe be the necessarily existent Being, according to this pretended explication of necessity?” (Cleanthes, First Philosophy, pg.80.) This argument is bringing to light the question of whether or not we can assume we know God’s properties, if we in fact cannot settle on exactly what the philosopher 's God can or cannot do. There may be an attribute of God’s that makes his existence necessary that we simply are unaware of and cannot dismiss. The last opposing argument Cleanthes presents is him objecting that “it is absurd to seek a cause for an external succession.” This is because if we are seeking for a cause for an infinite causal chain, than we are assuming there was a cause for the external succession. If we assume there is a cause, there must have been a cause for that one as well, which cannot be possible seeing as the chain is already infinite and there was no beginning. Therefore, a causal chain simply cannot have a cause. The final argument opposing Demea’s cosmological argument is Cleanthes saying that the parts not need represent its whole. This means that something may not appear similar to its earlier state and if every effect is explained correctly by its proceeding cause, then there need not to be a cause for the infinite chain of every effect. I do see the logic in Cleanthes objections and I do agree with his objections in regards to the argumentation of the cosmological argument. When