Cosmological Argument

Amazing Essays
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

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    “If you accept that there is a God, it is logical to accept also that His existence is necessary. But you don’t have to accept that there is a God.” It is this conclusion that you can deny the existence of God that tears down the validity of the ontological argument. The critical analysis of ontological thinking in this essay concludes that the argument structure is invalid and applied ontological thinking cannot conclude on the existence of a God with any validity. This serves to refute the structure of Anselm’s classical ontological argument due to its reliance upon the use of ‘existence’ as a predicate of God and the structural errors highlighted by Gaunilo’s counterargument. Collaboratively this concludes that the ontological argument, specifically Anselm’s ontological argument, cannot be used to deductively prove the existence of…

    • 1368 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The default belief is that there is a single reality in which knowledge exists, if a critic argues against this, he or she would be saying that there is knowledge for the contrary, which is contradictory: their claim defeats itself. For either side of the argument to be fruitful in efforts, one side would have to have objective knowledge. Disagreeing has never been a sign that there is no truth at all. For example, few doubt the existence of some overarching moral code; they may disagree on the specifics of that code without finding that as lack of any code at all. If there were no objective knowledge, there would be complete chaos; there are so many things in the grand scheme of life that are universally agreed upon.…

    • 1153 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Both attempt to deduce the existence of God by reason alone, and both without any assumption of divine revelation or sensory experience. While the monologion offers compelling proofs for God’s existence, it also suffers from shortcomings, namely an inherent a priori assumption that God exists. What the monologging does offer are a description of divine qualities. While it may prove that God is the most good, the source of existence, ar even a being superior to all others, none of these prove God’s existence. Rather, should the assumption be made that God exists, this is essential description of Him.…

    • 1352 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Descartes Existence Of God

    • 1454 Words
    • 6 Pages

    This would be absurd. Hence an infinite, supremely intelligent and powerful, perfect cause must exist. This cause is also extrinsic to the Meditator - he cannot be the cause of this idea of perfection, for he is a limited, imperfect being. It follows that the idea of God is an innate idea which has been implanted during the creational process by God himself, like 'the artisan 's trademark imprinted on his work ' - hence 'the trademark argument ' name. Before concluding the Third Meditation Descartes puts forward a slightly different, briefer…

    • 1454 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    (P4) Thus, if God exists only in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God. (P5) However, we cannot imagine something that is greater than God because it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined. (C1) Therefore, God does exist in reality. In his argument, he does not clearly differentiate the word “God”. The word “God” should have two meanings: one is God who exists in reality and the other one is God who exists in the mind.…

    • 1645 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    • The argument is a reductio ad absurdum because it disproves the Ontological Argument using the existence of something that would be absurd. This island which none is greater doesn’t actually exist, and so the logic in the Ontological Argument is disproven. 5. Lay out and explain Kant’s critique of the Ontological Argument. • Kant argues that existing isn’t a predicate, and existing doesn’t change the set that the descriptions apply to.…

    • 946 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In nature we see that each occasion has a cause; consequently, there more likely than not been an underlying cause to get the universe to unfurl as so. The underlying cause is God. This contention does not include any decisiveness, yet rather just pushes the inquiry further for one could request that what created God exist? A run of the mill answer to this is God does not have any significant bearing to the circumstances and end results law expressed and exists in light of the fact that. It appears to be difficult to contend this however one could without much of a stretch envision that some matter just exists as well; and that it doesn 't make a difference to the circumstances and end results administer yet exists in light of the fact that.…

    • 1071 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    This could mean that an independent, dependent, or brute beings are possible and it causes premise one to be false while using this objective. I disagree with this objection with the use of principle of sufficient reason. Sense brute being do not have a cause, they can’t exist through the principle of sufficient reason. The cosmological argument is defended through this…

    • 1117 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Though Scriven accepts that you cannot directly disprove the existence of God, he holds that when a claim is entirely unsupported, it is sufficient reason to warrant a position that denies this claim. When you grow up to realize that your belief in Santa isn’t substantiated by any evidence and is in fact, contrary to it, the proper response is not only to defer belief in his existence but to abandon it entirely. Scriven argues that we should be motivated to act similarly when met with an absence of both general and specific evidence for the existence of…

    • 2556 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Which brings me to the final argument and it is the teleological argument. This means that these above arguments do not solidify that there is a particular God. Even if these arguments are correct, it doesn’t establish that there is the stereotypical “personal” God that everyone prays to. For example, some people have little/nothing in common with certain Gods and not everyone has the same in common with certain god/s that other people may have; such as the rules, the values, the concepts, etc. It is also possible for people to believe that there are god/s out there and it doesn’t matter if they know what type of god/s it is.…

    • 1375 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays