Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God Philosopher Samuel Clarke introduced a myriad of reasons that are now considered the “Cosmological Argument” that directly attribute reason to the existence of a supreme being we humans consider “God.” Throughout this essay, I will be discussing Clarke’s Cosmological Argument, but I will be using the formulation from Professor Kearns’ notes. Clarke’s Cosmological Argument is founded on four premises and a single conclusion. This essay will analyze each premise of Clarke’s argument and explain how denying the Principle of Sufficient Reason creates problems for the argument. The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) is the explanation that “in the case of any positive truth, there is some reason
…show more content…
Although the arguments set forth by these philosophers are considered the “most complete, forceful, and cogent presentation of the Cosmological Argument we possess,” there were skeptics that challenged the philosophers’ reasoning (Rowe 51). In particular, philosopher David Hume read the argument and attacked virtually every premise that was set forth. Humes divides his arguments into three main ideas, but focusing on his first and more prominent argument, Humes attacks the way the Cosmological Argument is structured. As stated, the Cosmological Argument creates the impression that there has to be a reason for everything, but Humes criticizes this reasoning by stating that existent beings do not need to have a reason or even a cause for their existence. For example, visualize a set of dominoes standing up that is ordered in a straight line. Using the ideas from Clarke’s argument, in order for the first domino to fall (and eventually the remaining) something must provoke its falling. Humes rejects this (and in turn, the PSR) by stating that the dominoes do not require an explanation for their falling, and the entire set of dominoes does not require an explanation for its being. It simply just …show more content…
Essentially, denying the PSR completely negates each of the premises that Clarke laid out. Reason/cause for truths will no longer be explained and subsequently will not be able to explain a regress of beings, and this means the arguments will no longer have grounds to stand on. Skeptics like Humes will deny all support towards the PSR by denying reason for existing being to be caused by something, and this way of thinking has also been adopted by other philosophers. The Cosmological Argument is supported by four strong premises and a somewhat controversial conclusion to skeptics, thus creating debate since its inception. The claims made within the argument are logically sound, but are still not completely transparent, increasing the chance of counterarguments. Clarke’s premises encounter problems when they are challenged by skeptics, who usually target the PSR, and thus completely negate the argument. Although the topic has been debated for centuries, it may be a logical conclusion that the discussions and justifications for each premise will continue into the
Although the arguments set forth by these philosophers are considered the “most complete, forceful, and cogent presentation of the Cosmological Argument we possess,” there were skeptics that challenged the philosophers’ reasoning (Rowe 51). In particular, philosopher David Hume read the argument and attacked virtually every premise that was set forth. Humes divides his arguments into three main ideas, but focusing on his first and more prominent argument, Humes attacks the way the Cosmological Argument is structured. As stated, the Cosmological Argument creates the impression that there has to be a reason for everything, but Humes criticizes this reasoning by stating that existent beings do not need to have a reason or even a cause for their existence. For example, visualize a set of dominoes standing up that is ordered in a straight line. Using the ideas from Clarke’s argument, in order for the first domino to fall (and eventually the remaining) something must provoke its falling. Humes rejects this (and in turn, the PSR) by stating that the dominoes do not require an explanation for their falling, and the entire set of dominoes does not require an explanation for its being. It simply just …show more content…
Essentially, denying the PSR completely negates each of the premises that Clarke laid out. Reason/cause for truths will no longer be explained and subsequently will not be able to explain a regress of beings, and this means the arguments will no longer have grounds to stand on. Skeptics like Humes will deny all support towards the PSR by denying reason for existing being to be caused by something, and this way of thinking has also been adopted by other philosophers. The Cosmological Argument is supported by four strong premises and a somewhat controversial conclusion to skeptics, thus creating debate since its inception. The claims made within the argument are logically sound, but are still not completely transparent, increasing the chance of counterarguments. Clarke’s premises encounter problems when they are challenged by skeptics, who usually target the PSR, and thus completely negate the argument. Although the topic has been debated for centuries, it may be a logical conclusion that the discussions and justifications for each premise will continue into the