Outline the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God (21)

Outline the cosmogenic air for the human race of God (21) The cosmogonic argument is an argument that attempts to prove the existence of God, it is also known as the motive argument which argues that as all events take aim a cause, if the universe is an event it must give a cause and that cause is God. The argument is a posteriori because its based on express that already exists in the universe. The cosmological argument is also inductive because the conclusion is what is most prob commensurate, it is also synthetic because the truth can that be determined by experience. Cosmological comes from the Greek words kosmos and logos translated as cosmos corresponding with universe and Logos opineing blueprint or plan. Therefore, cosmology refers to the blueprint of the universe. The Cosmological argument originated from Plato and Aristotle however it was mainly later developed by St. Thomas doubting Thomas. Their arguments both began with the musical theme that accomplishment claims a prior agency. Plato then identified the first cause of the chain of events as the need for an unmoved mover which started off the chain.Aquinas main argument is well known as Aquinas third way the argument from contingency and necessity. The first of Aquinas ways was from motion, this follows the idea that all objects move and a change of quality is movement. goose egg can move itself, which then leads to the idea of a chain of movement but the chain cannot be infinate, therfor thither must be an unmoved mover to begin the chain. This first mover is God. The second of Aquinas ways was from efficiant causes, this follows the idea that all things are caused by something else because they cant cause themselves or they would exist before themselves.However this would mean that there cant be an non-finite chain of causes, meaning there must be a 1st cause that caused all causes, then this 1st cause is God. The third of Aquinas ways is from contingency and necessity. This fol lows the idea that everything is dependant of circumstanceors outside itself, therefor everything is contingent. If this is correct then there must be a indispensable being upon which everything is dependant on. The necessary being is God.Another part to the cosmological argument is the Kalam argument which was developed by Al Ghazali and recently developed by Craig. The Kalam argument rejects the idea of an actual unnumerable because an actual infinite past of the universe is impossible. Craig developed the Kalam argument and added that it is logically unsound to propose an infinite series because for this to truly occur we would have to have travelled an infinite length of while and so still wouldnt be in the present yet.However, some would critique Aquinas theory, for example rube pokes holes in aquinass three ways. Hick says that Aquinas present us with two alternatives that the universe is either a fact, or there is a first cause. Aquinas argument can only be proven if th ere is establish of a first cause of the universe. (ii )Consider the view that the strengths are more convincing than the weaknesses (9) Leibniz argued that there had to be a sufficient reason for the universe to exist which supports Aquinass theory.Leibniz says that even if the universe had always been in existence, it would still require an explanation for its existence so we can establish that there is something rather than nothing. Since there is nothing deep down the universe to show why it exists the reason must therefor exist outside of it. However Hume disagrees with Aquinas and observes that to arrive at the existance of god from the premises of the cosmological argument, this requires an inductive leap which ineffectively guesses without having actual evidence that allows for the assumption to be made.This then means that you cannot devil an inductive leap about the universe because we cannot make conclusions about something outside our exerience. In contrast to Hume co pelston suports Aquinas rejection of infinite regress based on the idea that an infinite chain of contingent beings would only consist of contingent beings therefor meaning they could never be able to bring themselves into existence. However like Hume, Mackie disagrees with Aquinas inductive leap by stating hat everything at some time must exist to at some point sometime everything does not exist here there is a catch overlap of things that just dont make sense to put after eachother as there is clearly something wanting in the sum. Taking these points into consideration we can make the assumption that the weaknesses are in actual fact stronger than the strengths because the strenghts agree with the inductive leap aquinas has made, however the leap clearly looks as if something in the middle is missing as you just cant make an assumption on something bigger than us that we have no expience of.