The cosmological argument aims to study the nature and order of the universe.
“‘The world cannot come from nothing’. The idea here is that the existence of the universe demands a cause, reason, or explanation.” (Davis, 1993) It is also known as the first cause argument. The argument states that we can infer the existence of God from the universe. It is an a posteriori argument which starts at experience. Cosmological arguments are made from the viewpoint of observation. The cosmological argument is also inductive by distinction. It argues from an individual occurrence to a general conclusion. The cosmological argument is widely studied and supported by various scholars from Aquinas, to Stannard. However, the cosmological argument does not come without challenges. From theories such as the Big Bang, to Russell’s theory that the universe is simply a brute fact. In this essay we will discuss in detail the cosmological argument and it’s theory for the existence of God and how these may fit with modern theories. We will also discuss some of the modern theories which wish …show more content…
While this theory accepts modern concepts such as the big bang as correct. It does not see them as isolated. The big bang is not a single event. It is a continuous. This is categorised by two arguments. Firstly that the universe will expand and continue to do so until there is a Big Freeze. Secondly, that the universe will end in a Big Crunch, that galaxies will continuously contract and expand, folding in on themselves and then expand. If this theory is correct, there is no beginning. It is a continual process. Philosophers state that this is not possible to happen in an infinite way. Thus, Leibiniz argues that there must be a complete and total explanation. However, theorists such as Kant state that only necessary things can be described using words or statements, such as a square has four sides. There cannot be a being that cannot
“‘The world cannot come from nothing’. The idea here is that the existence of the universe demands a cause, reason, or explanation.” (Davis, 1993) It is also known as the first cause argument. The argument states that we can infer the existence of God from the universe. It is an a posteriori argument which starts at experience. Cosmological arguments are made from the viewpoint of observation. The cosmological argument is also inductive by distinction. It argues from an individual occurrence to a general conclusion. The cosmological argument is widely studied and supported by various scholars from Aquinas, to Stannard. However, the cosmological argument does not come without challenges. From theories such as the Big Bang, to Russell’s theory that the universe is simply a brute fact. In this essay we will discuss in detail the cosmological argument and it’s theory for the existence of God and how these may fit with modern theories. We will also discuss some of the modern theories which wish …show more content…
While this theory accepts modern concepts such as the big bang as correct. It does not see them as isolated. The big bang is not a single event. It is a continuous. This is categorised by two arguments. Firstly that the universe will expand and continue to do so until there is a Big Freeze. Secondly, that the universe will end in a Big Crunch, that galaxies will continuously contract and expand, folding in on themselves and then expand. If this theory is correct, there is no beginning. It is a continual process. Philosophers state that this is not possible to happen in an infinite way. Thus, Leibiniz argues that there must be a complete and total explanation. However, theorists such as Kant state that only necessary things can be described using words or statements, such as a square has four sides. There cannot be a being that cannot