Winfried Corduan argues that unless there is a God, there could not be any world. He attempts to beat this criticism by clarifying a premise and conclusion to the Cosmological Argument, using metaphysics. In this paper, I will prove this argument fails at explaining the creation of our universe. Reading through Corduan’s essay, has actualized a potential in my brain. I now truly realize that Winfried Corduan is actually an expert on the actualization of potentials. At least I would hope someone who could write eight pages on a subject would have some knowledge of the topic. Although I agree with everything Corduan had to say about potential finite things being actualized by actual finite things, I do not believe he has proven God 's existence. I also agree with what Corduan says about the five …show more content…
This is another instance where I agree with Corduan, but this situation is not complimentary to the argument that God created the universe. In the situation described, it would be reasonable to assume that someone stabbed the king with the knife. It would not be reasonable to assume that a loyal subject of the king entered his quarters to relay a message. A message that was so heinous the king could no longer live with himself, and instructing the loyal subject to prop a knife with the blade facing up so the king could purposely fall into the knife ending his own life. This follows along the lines of Occam’s razor, which states that the hypotheses with the fewest assumptions should be selected. If we take this razor to the Cosmological Argument, it becomes clear adding God to the equation is just adding an unsupported assumption to the equation. If we are looking for the beginning of the universe, why should we assume some other entity with origins just as unknown as the universe 's was responsible for its