The question being asked is does Samuel Clarkes cosmological argument succeed or fail? Through his reasoning, I believe that his argument succeeds. After some thorough consideration and advising I have found all of Clarks premises, which are the steps in his argument, valid and cannot be fully proven otherwise.
Clarkes cosmological argument is as follows: (1) There exists either an unending chain solely of dependent beings or there also exists at least one independent being; (2) An unending chain solely of dependent beings has no cause, since it has no cause from within or without the unending chain of dependent beings; (3) Everything that exists has a cause; From premises (2) and (3) we also conclude: (4) An unending chain solely of dependent …show more content…
Premise 2 talks about how there is no cause to the chain of dependent beings due to the belief of an Atheist that there is nothing outside the chain so nothing could cause it. Clarke also talks about there being no being within the chain can provide a cause for itself either. Premise 3 talks about the Principle of Sufficient Reason which means for anything to really exist it must have a cause. Due to premise 2, that there is no reason or cause, and premise 3, through the principle of sufficient reason there must be a cause creates premise 4 proves that an infinite chain of dependent beings cannot exist. Which means there must be a reason for their existence somehow. Which is premise 5, one independent being must exist for all other being to exist as …show more content…
One might argue that the Cosmological Argument doesn’t get us to the Christian God. One might argue if an I-being is even the same as God. Another question is if an Atheist can even accept the existence of an I-being. What Clarke is getting at here though is that he is not trying to prove the I-being is God, just that there is an I-being and there is a cause to beings. This could be a God or even just the universe. One objective to this conclusion is the objection from Brute Beings. Clarke states that he believes in two types of beings, independent and dependent. Some argue that there is a third known as the Brute being and it doesn’t have a clause. 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
Clarkes cosmological argument is as follows: (1) There exists either an unending chain solely of dependent beings or there also exists at least one independent being; (2) An unending chain solely of dependent beings has no cause, since it has no cause from within or without the unending chain of dependent beings; (3) Everything that exists has a cause; From premises (2) and (3) we also conclude: (4) An unending chain solely of dependent …show more content…
Premise 2 talks about how there is no cause to the chain of dependent beings due to the belief of an Atheist that there is nothing outside the chain so nothing could cause it. Clarke also talks about there being no being within the chain can provide a cause for itself either. Premise 3 talks about the Principle of Sufficient Reason which means for anything to really exist it must have a cause. Due to premise 2, that there is no reason or cause, and premise 3, through the principle of sufficient reason there must be a cause creates premise 4 proves that an infinite chain of dependent beings cannot exist. Which means there must be a reason for their existence somehow. Which is premise 5, one independent being must exist for all other being to exist as …show more content…
One might argue that the Cosmological Argument doesn’t get us to the Christian God. One might argue if an I-being is even the same as God. Another question is if an Atheist can even accept the existence of an I-being. What Clarke is getting at here though is that he is not trying to prove the I-being is God, just that there is an I-being and there is a cause to beings. This could be a God or even just the universe. One objective to this conclusion is the objection from Brute Beings. Clarke states that he believes in two types of beings, independent and dependent. Some argue that there is a third known as the Brute being and it doesn’t have a clause. 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