Cantorian mathematicians argue that these results apply to any infinite set, whether in pure mathematics, imaginary libraries, or the real world series of concrete events. For example, if God or the universe is logically or absolutely necessary, something would not only Philosophy essay cosmological argument but would have to exist even if nothing else existed.
There is no logical absurdity in claiming that things can come into existence without a cause. In this debate, Copleston claims that the universe is, in itself, not a physical thing, it is instead the aggregate or sum of all the objects which it contains. The being that Gale has in mind is a very powerful and intelligent designer-creator, not the all perfect God of Anselm, for this perfect God who would exist in all possible worlds would be incompatible with the existence of gratuitous and horrendous evils to be found in some of those possible worlds.
Positing the existence of God, then, raises as many problems as it solves, and so the cosmological argument leaves us in no better position than it found us, with one entity the existence of which we cannot explain. The absurdities resulting from attempting to apply basic arithmetical operations, functional in the real world, to infinities suggest that although actual infinites can have an ideal existence, they cannot exist in reality.
If something is contingent, it contains a contingent part. This unique singularity constitutes the beginning of the universe—of matter, energy, space, time, and all physical laws.
Hence, it is possible that there are no dependent beings; that is, that the universe is contingent. But the whole, you say, wants a cause. Thus, if the cosmological argument appeals to the PSR to establish the existence of a necessary being whose existence is expressed by a necessary proposition as an explanation for contingent beings, it fails in that it cannot account for the contingent beings it purportedly explains.
Imagine for example an infinite collection of red and black balls. What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent necessary being.
We can easily be misled by the language of there being nothing at all, leading to the notion that nothing has being or existence. The second does so by distinguishing between things that are contingent and things that are necessary.
It only does not play a role in supporting a particular premise in the argument. Aristotle, a deistposited that this first cause was the creator of the universe.
There is a modus tolens reason to reject it, since there are other grounds for thinking that theism is false. Although God is a necessary being, his connection with the world is through his free agency, and free actions explain but do not entail the existence of particular contingent states.
Morriston is rightly puzzled by this reply, for, he asks, what makes a cause out of a bunch of merely necessary conditions. Hence, for both series an infinity of events is possible, and, as symmetrical, the infinity of both series is the same.
But, as we will question below, is the brute fact of the universe any more unacceptable as a complete explanation than the brute fact of a necessary being?
While it is true that, according to human logic, infinite regression does not seem logical, in mathematics, it is possible to have an infinite series of regression; numbers can keep increasing or decreasing in size infinitely, thereby proving that infinite regression is entirely possible.
Contrary to Russell, there will be days—an infinite number—about which he will be unable to write. Similarly, Michael Martin These arguments include: the cosmological argument, teleological argument, and ontological argument.
These arguments seek to provide a logical rationale as to the existence of God. The paper will, therefore, discuss the arguments at length.
Cosmological argument, Form of argument used in natural theology to prove the existence of God. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa theologiae, presented two versions of the cosmological argument: the first-cause argument and the argument.
The Cosmological argument fits in with the God of classical theism (omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient).
It makes sense to think that there is an initial cause to the universe: this fits with our experience of events within the universe.
Evaluate the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Cosmological Argument for Proving God Exists. (40) This essay, of A grade standard, has been submitted by a student.
The Cosmological Argument or First Cause Argument is a philosophical argument for the existence of God which explains that everything has a cause, that there must have been a first cause, and that this first cause was itself uncaused.
The cosmological argument is less a particular argument than an argument type. It uses a general pattern of argumentation (logos) that makes an inference from particular alleged facts about the universe (cosmos) to the existence of a unique being, generally identified with or referred to as God.Download