More handpicked essays just for you.
The Existence of God: Argument for and Against
The cosmological argument essay
The cosmological argument essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Hambourger’s argument from design argues for the existence of god based on the perceived evidence of deliberate design in the world/universe. To further elaborate on the concepts he uses, Hambourger uses three main concepts; determinism, chance, and mere hap. Hambourger’s argument from design claims that though many things occur by chance, there are some things which we cannot simply accept to have happened by chance, and must therefore have some common explanation in the causal chain of events connecting the two events. For instance the universe is created by many states of affairs coming together. If some slight changes had occurred, the end result could have been vastly different than it currently is.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence 2. The universe began to exist 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of existence His defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument revolves mostly around the second premise. This is mostly due to him finding the first premise as intuitively obvious, where he claims that “no one, seriously denies it”. From experience, we find that physical objects do not come into existence without causes.
I have to admit that Zimmerman’s talk was hard at times for me to comprehend. I would love feedback if I understood his divine argument wrong, because I have had a few discussions about it with my peers and many took away different views from his final argument for a divine being, and in this paper I will explain how I understood his final argument. To come upon the divine being of God, he had to eliminate all the other contingent and necessary options believed by other philosophers and scientists through reasoning. He explained how it wasn’t possible for their to be no answer for the cosmos, nor were any of the contingent explanations of science, philosophy, or an infinite past made any sense.
The objection addressed the validity of the argument which had the premise 1, nothing is the efficient cause of itself except God and premise 2, a chain of causes cannot be infinite. The argument thus concludes there must be a first cause. This conclusion agrees with my thesis that Saint Thomas Aquinas’s argument formulated in the second way leads to a valid argument, which concludes that there must be a first cause and that God
If god doesn’t cause my existence, then I am caused by myself, my parents or a lesser cause. There is no infinite regression, so I my existence isn’t caused by my parents or lesser cause, Therefore, God is the cause of my existence (AD 51). As well I am not God, If I created
Joy Orr is one of the most down-to-earth individuals I have ever met and is always looking for ways to brighten up other people’s days. If it’s a simple act of kindness such as surprising a friend with a Starbucks drink, or helping out on the global scale such as traveling to Albania to teach kids English, Joy Orr is genuinely enthusiastic about everything life has to offer. She is also my best friend. Joy has inspired me to step out of my comfort zone to serve others. She has travelled to Cuba, Mexico, Haiti, Albania, Russia, and Germany for medical and educational missions trips.
So the first cause argument proves that God does not exist assuming the first cause argument is sound then there must be some other cause because it is not God. In summary the notion of omnipotent is a miss-name because it implies the potency, power, causality when in fact all that it does is imply logical entailment, it implies that if it wills something you can deduce from the statement that something exists, you do not need a causal step, it is a logical deduction and therefore the first cause argument argues from causes in the world
This argument is built on the basis that God operates and exists differently from humans; more specifically, that he exists “outside” of our Earthly reality. Therefore, many of our human spatial concepts do not apply to him. God should not be thought of as existing “now”, because the way time operates and is perceived by humans does not apply to him. Rather, God exists completely apart from the realm of time. This means that even if God has knowledge of the outcome of events on Earth, his knowledge of them is not had before, during, or after they
This argument clearly explains that God is reasonable to believe in, but it can be argued against. This argument suggests that our universe was designed in a specific way. It could not have been created just by chance or by the Big Bang, it must have been created by God. Willian Paley argued that if you were walking on a grassland and you found a watch, you would think that someone has designed this watch to fulfil a purpose. A watch has a creator because of its complexity.
Cosmological arguments for the existence of God argue that a certain element of the universe has a cause that can only be explained by God as a creator. Descartes' idea of perfection requires a cause–and the origin of this conception of perfection can only be the result of a perfect being. He begins this argument by establishing the fact that he is not a perfect thing based on the fact that he doubts. He realizes that a perfect being would not doubt because to know is better than to doubt. To doubt is an imperfection and because he doubts, he is imperfect.
This is its biggest weakness, in order for it to succeed someone has to presuppose that God exists. Another weakness is based on whether or not existence is an actual property of something like its size, weight, or color. If existence isn’t considered a property then it fails, but if it is then it succeeds. Then there is the cosmological argument.
He further elaborates on this watch saying that even if you had never seen a watch made or known someone to make it you would still recognize that the watch had a creator. Also the watch at times may go wrong, even if this happens it still does not prove that the watch does not have a creator. Further that the watch has parts whose functions are unknown this still does not determine that the watch does not have a creator. Ultimately what this argument comes down to is that the watch is an analogy for the universe and or human beings. All of these things he attributed to the watch is in like fashion attributed to the universe.
The debate of the existence of God has always been a controversial topic and has been going on for centuries. Till this day it is still a debate. We have people who strongly believe in God and others who questions his existence. Those who have strong faith will try to convince everyone who does not believe in God that he exits. They will try to come up with arguments to show he is real and good.
Pg. 63). The general principles of a cosmological argument are: effects have causes, things happen and things exist for a reason, it’s trying to explain things, and all our sciences, studies, and lives are based on it (McGowan, Michael. N.p.). During Josh Wheaton’s speech in defending his belief, he uses this type of argument and talks about the Big Bang. He talked about how in the 1920s, Belgian astronomer and theist, Georges Lemaitre, said the entire universe jumping into existence in a trillionth of a second, out of nothing, in a flash of light, is how he would expect the universe to respond if God were to actually utter the command in Genesis 1:3, “let there be light”.
In this argument we already assumed that there may be possibility that God exist and finally we reached where we started. So this argument does not give us the exact information about existence of God. There are many objections on this argument but still it is a powerful argument. In my opinion, this argument is not much satisfactory. It describes that existence is greater than imagination.
