Lucas Shaw
Short paper #1
Philosophy, Topic #2
Cosmological argument for the existence of God. Cosmological argument: An argument (or set of arguments) that undertakes to “prove” that God exists on the basis of the idea that there must have been a first cause or an ultimate reason for the existence of the universe (Introducing Philosophy, pg 661). This is the definition of this argument according to this particular book. In other words, the cosmological argument is a philosophical argument, which means that everything has a cause for the reason it is there, and that there must have been a first cause, and that this first cause was itself uncaused. Some say the cosmological argument is the most logical argument in the eyes of western logicians …show more content…
Basically, saying that we need a measuring stick in order to understand the value of things like good/bad/cold/hot/big/small etc. We measure the size of things in terms to other things. If someone is walking down the street and they see a squirrel then they would think that it is a small animal, but if they saw an ant next to the squirrel, then they would think the squirrel is huge. Another example is the grade I receive on this paper, if I receive an A then I know that is good because there are grades lower than an A but nothing higher, but if I receive an F than I know it is bad because there are grades above an F but nothing lower. There has to be something/someone that is defining the value of everything. If there weren’t then our values/rules would have no meaning and perfection wouldn’t exist. In order for there to be perfection we need to culminate perfection, and some say God is the culmination of perfection. “Therefore, there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.” (Introducing Philosophy. Pg …show more content…
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. This being said, people can believe that the most important thing isn’t to believe exactly what everyone else believes in but to just believe that there is a divine authority out there. Another thing is it could be that God is an old man with a beard, a woman with long hair, an eagle, or a rock. “As a logical argument, two modern objections seem to have considerable weight. First, even if the argument is totally valid, it proves only that there is some “first mover” or “first cause” or “necessary being”. It does not prove that this being has all the other attributes that allow us to recognize God”. (Introducing Philosphy. Pg 140). Another key point that could prove these arguments wrong is the fact that infinite regress is possible. If infinite regress is possible
Short paper #1
Philosophy, Topic #2
Cosmological argument for the existence of God. Cosmological argument: An argument (or set of arguments) that undertakes to “prove” that God exists on the basis of the idea that there must have been a first cause or an ultimate reason for the existence of the universe (Introducing Philosophy, pg 661). This is the definition of this argument according to this particular book. In other words, the cosmological argument is a philosophical argument, which means that everything has a cause for the reason it is there, and that there must have been a first cause, and that this first cause was itself uncaused. Some say the cosmological argument is the most logical argument in the eyes of western logicians …show more content…
Basically, saying that we need a measuring stick in order to understand the value of things like good/bad/cold/hot/big/small etc. We measure the size of things in terms to other things. If someone is walking down the street and they see a squirrel then they would think that it is a small animal, but if they saw an ant next to the squirrel, then they would think the squirrel is huge. Another example is the grade I receive on this paper, if I receive an A then I know that is good because there are grades lower than an A but nothing higher, but if I receive an F than I know it is bad because there are grades above an F but nothing lower. There has to be something/someone that is defining the value of everything. If there weren’t then our values/rules would have no meaning and perfection wouldn’t exist. In order for there to be perfection we need to culminate perfection, and some say God is the culmination of perfection. “Therefore, there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.” (Introducing Philosophy. Pg …show more content…
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. This being said, people can believe that the most important thing isn’t to believe exactly what everyone else believes in but to just believe that there is a divine authority out there. Another thing is it could be that God is an old man with a beard, a woman with long hair, an eagle, or a rock. “As a logical argument, two modern objections seem to have considerable weight. First, even if the argument is totally valid, it proves only that there is some “first mover” or “first cause” or “necessary being”. It does not prove that this being has all the other attributes that allow us to recognize God”. (Introducing Philosphy. Pg 140). Another key point that could prove these arguments wrong is the fact that infinite regress is possible. If infinite regress is possible