In the middle of the 17th century, thinkers in the enlightenment began to question how belief in the existence of a monotheistic God could be rationally supported. A number of arguments for and against the existence of God emerged at this time, and while the philosophical debate on the existence of God is still in session, the initial dust has settled. At this point in time, it is abundantly clear that a the cosmological argument is untenable at both a metaphysical and empirical level, and that the various versions of the cosmological argument fail to support the existence of God. There is good reason for critically examining the cosmological argument. Theists have made a claim that God exists. Fideists maintain their beliefs by not needing
…show more content…
Clarke’s argument is a popular version of the argument from contingency. The argument revolves around contingent beings, which are things that do not have to exist, but do, and necessary beings, things that could not fail to exist. Clarke constructs a chain of contingent beings leading all the way up to the only necessary being, God, but unfortunately three of the links in Clarke’s “Chain Suspended from Heaven” are faulty. The first faulty link is a logical fallacy, namely the fallacy of composition. Clarke assumes that because all of the beings that compose the universe require explanation, then the universe itself requires explanation. This is a faulty assumption; the universe is not contingent because all the things within it are. The traits of the parts do not necessarily equal the traits of the whole. The universe could be the the necessary container holding all the contingent things within it. This the second problem, exposed by the first. Because Clarke can not prove that the universe is contingent, it could be necessary, and a necessary universe does not require a God to create it, because it is self …show more content…
The fine tuning argument suggests that the extremely precise values, such as the makeup of and temperature of earth 's atmosphere, are far too coincidental when a small change in those values would make earth unsuitable for life. The argument contends that it is not just coincidental, but in fact designed that way, by an omnibenevolent God who fine tuned these values to suite us. This argument seems to fare better than the watchmakers argument in the face of scientific progress, as there has been no alternative explanation discovered which can contest the fine tuned explanation. However, scientific progress still offers a counter argument, by returning to the fine tuning argument. Before the fine tuning argument had to contend with natural selection, David Hume still was still critical of the design argument, and his criticism was eventually proven to be mostly on point. Because of this, the argument can be made that the fine tuning argument is making assumptions before science can come to a satisfactory conclusion. The watchmaker argument and its failure haunts fine tuned explanation. After all, the watchmaker argument sounds logical enough in a vacuum, but once exposed to scientific progress it was beaten by a better explanation. Critics of a fine tuned universe argue that science will provide
Clarke’s argument is a popular version of the argument from contingency. The argument revolves around contingent beings, which are things that do not have to exist, but do, and necessary beings, things that could not fail to exist. Clarke constructs a chain of contingent beings leading all the way up to the only necessary being, God, but unfortunately three of the links in Clarke’s “Chain Suspended from Heaven” are faulty. The first faulty link is a logical fallacy, namely the fallacy of composition. Clarke assumes that because all of the beings that compose the universe require explanation, then the universe itself requires explanation. This is a faulty assumption; the universe is not contingent because all the things within it are. The traits of the parts do not necessarily equal the traits of the whole. The universe could be the the necessary container holding all the contingent things within it. This the second problem, exposed by the first. Because Clarke can not prove that the universe is contingent, it could be necessary, and a necessary universe does not require a God to create it, because it is self …show more content…
The fine tuning argument suggests that the extremely precise values, such as the makeup of and temperature of earth 's atmosphere, are far too coincidental when a small change in those values would make earth unsuitable for life. The argument contends that it is not just coincidental, but in fact designed that way, by an omnibenevolent God who fine tuned these values to suite us. This argument seems to fare better than the watchmakers argument in the face of scientific progress, as there has been no alternative explanation discovered which can contest the fine tuned explanation. However, scientific progress still offers a counter argument, by returning to the fine tuning argument. Before the fine tuning argument had to contend with natural selection, David Hume still was still critical of the design argument, and his criticism was eventually proven to be mostly on point. Because of this, the argument can be made that the fine tuning argument is making assumptions before science can come to a satisfactory conclusion. The watchmaker argument and its failure haunts fine tuned explanation. After all, the watchmaker argument sounds logical enough in a vacuum, but once exposed to scientific progress it was beaten by a better explanation. Critics of a fine tuned universe argue that science will provide