Does The First Cause Argument Show That God Exist

Does The First Cause Argument Show That God Exist
Does the First Cause Argument show that God exists?
The First Cause Argument (or "cosmological argument") as conjured by Thomas Aquinas (1225– 7
March 1274), an Italian philosopher gives reasoning for the existence of a higher entity called God.
Aquinas's argument brings forth the idea that the existence of the universe was orchestrated by a
higher entity which in turn shows the existence of the higher entity. This is all based on the premise
that everything has a beginning therefore the universe must have had a beginning. Therefore the
First Cause argument stipulates that there must be something that caused the cause that caused the
beginning of the universe. Aquinas' states that one can follow the long chain of effects and causes
till one reaches ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In the world that we sense, we find that efficient causes come in series.
2. But the series of efficient causes cannot possibly go back to infinity.
3. We must therefore posit a first efficient cause, which everyone understands to be God.
The following parts to this essay will attempt to disprove the First Cause Argument with a number
of objections, which are both good and poor objections, namely: Bertrand Russell objection ; "What
caused God?" objection ; Against the Second Premise objection ; and lastly Immaterial–Material
causation . For the Bertrand Russell objection, this paper will also discuss a more 'charitable' version
of the argument, to do with the non–physical creating the physical.
The Bertrand Russell objection, "The sub–conclusion contradicts the first premise", attempts to
disprove the First Cause Argument. Russell's argument although valid is also attacking a 'straw–man'
version of Aquinas' argument.
Bertrand Russell's straw man version:
1. For anything that exists there must have been something that caused its existence in the past.
2. There cannot be an infinite chain of effects and their causes, going back infinitely into the
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Argument In Richard Swinburne'sWhy God Exist?
People believe that if evil exists then so does God, and vice versa. It is also a common belief that
this perfect being is the creator of everything and everyone. From atom to atom and from molecule
to molecule, he designed all of it. It is also believed that this God has no flaws and is indeed a
perfect being. However, some people will tend to disagree. Ernest Nagel, an American philosopher,
proposed a series of counterarguments to many classic arguments on behalf of God's existence. He
dismisses arguments such as the cosmological argument, the ontological argument, and the
argument of design, by quickly pointing out their flaws. But just as there are people who discredit
God's existence, there are people who argue that he does exist. Richard Swinburne, a British
philosopher, provides his own series of arguments on why God exists. Moreover, his arguments are
centralized around the problem of evil. In "Why God Allows Evil", Swinburne discusses rationale
behind God allowing evil to exist. To keep it short and sweet, Swinburne believes that there are two
types of evils, moral and natural, and that they exist for a reason. In "Does God Exist?" Nagel points
out the flaws found within the three classical arguments that support God's existence. Once again,
these arguments include the cosmological argument, the ontological argument, and the argument of
design. First, the cosmological argument will be discussed. Basically, the cosmological argument
implies that every event was

Analysis Of Mccloskey 's ' On Being An Atheist
In McCloskey's (1968) article "On Being an Atheist", the arguments for the existence of God are
rebutted and some compelling reasons are given in order to enlighten some other atheists who might
be struggling to defend their beliefs. Firstly, McCloskey (1968) opens his discussion by asserting
that the three main proofs (teleological, cosmological, and argument from design) of God's existence
are not the basic nor the right proofs with which to arrive at a "vague" (p.51) conclusion that states
the existence of a necessary being. These proofs have not been considered by the serious
theologians, but instead, they have been the excuse of the parson (McCloskey, 1968). However,
McCloskey misses the point made by such arguments by assuming that such defenses are a definite
proof of the existence of God. To regard something as a proof, one must know that the argument
being made is certain and incorrigible, but the arguments made by the theist are said to be
defeasible, not incorrigible or certain (Foreman, 2012). This mean that the arguments can be
regarded as true unless a defeater, which if it were true, would defeat the argument (Foreman, 2012).
Then, if the classical arguments used by the theist to advocate for God's existence are defeasible and
not "proofs" as McCloskey claims, and no defeater has been shown to be true, there is no need to
abandon such arguments.
Secondly, McCloskey discusses the cosmological argument and states that there is no reason for
believing that the

Everyman
A RESPONSE TO ATHEISM
PHIL 201 D44 LUO
August 18, 2011
A Response to Atheism
In reading McCloskey's article it's obvious he is searching for definitive proof that God exists. He is
unable to find proof and therefore comes to the conclusion that God must not exist. He believes that
the existence of evil discredits arguments made in support of believing in God. There is not one
single thing in this world that we can know definitively without looking at the evidence. You have to
look at the whole picture. Just like in a criminal investigation, the crime scene investigators gather
evidence they are not looking for just the bullets or just the body. They look and gather all the data
before coming to any conclusions. We will discuss ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
When you look at each of the arguments individually I can see how one might come to this
conclusion. The cosmological argument only proves (if accepted) that there is a necessary being;
however it does not prove that he is divine or perfect. The teleological argument by itself leaves us
wondering why we also see chaos in the world around us. Not everything is orderly and perfect. You
need to collectively look at each of the arguments prior to coming to a conclusion about the
existence of God.
McCloskey believes that because there is evil there is no God. There could be valid reasons for the
presence of evil in the world, though some may beyond our comprehension and understanding.
There needs to be some proof or evidence provided if one wants to make a claim that it's illogical
for God and evil to exist in the same world. McCloskey's article does not provide this proof. He just
says that because there is evil there is no God.
As parents we sometimes allow bad things to happen to our children to teach them a lesson. We
make a choice to allow them to deal with the consequences of their actions so they might learn from
that experience. If we are created in the image of God isn't it possible that as our Father, he allows
us to suffer sometimes to realize the consequences of our actions? It is possible and if it's possible
then it gives a good explanation why God may allow evil things to occur.

The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Cosmological Argument...
The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God
The cosmological argument seeks to prove the existence of God by looking at the universe. It is an A
posteriori proof based on experience and the observation of the world not logic so the outcome is
probable or possible not definite. The argument is in three forms; motion, causation and being.
These are also the first three ways in the five ways presented by Aquinas through which he believed
the existence of God could be shown. Aquinas regarded Aristotle as the principal philosopher so
many of these concepts originate in the thinking of Aristotle.
One example of the cosmological argument is the argument of ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Therefore, it is more believable that the universe had a beginning and a personal creator.
The third of Aquinas' ways is the argument of contingency. The world consists of contingent items–
items that have a property are items referred to as 'being.' These items are generated and perish; they
have a beginning and an end. There must have once been a time when nothing existed. But then how
did these items come into being? There must be something or someone able to bring other items into
being without itself being brought into being. This necessary being is God.
These arguments are strong ones for the existence of God, built upon clear and apparently true
observations of the world around us. However, there are many criticisms. Hume argued that both
Thomas Aquinas and William Lane Craig contradict themselves by firstly denying the possibility of
the infinite, but then claiming that there must have been an infinite being. How can this be so?
Supporters of the argument could use the idea that God is unique and outside the laws of nature. But
even so, this point weakens the argument as there is no proof of the attributes of God.
Many may ask these questions: Why does the universe have to be caused? Why cannot it always
have been there? The human mind seems incapable of comprehending the idea of infinity, yet we
accept the idea of an immortal being. A

Mccloskey Imperfection Vs Evil
assumed that the machine was made by someone with specific skills to build and maintain the
equipment in order for the machine to continue to produce equipment. The similar situation is
occurring as God left his "machine" to do his work and has no need to change anything that it is
producing.
McCloskey further argued the presence of imperfection and evil in the world argues against divine
design or divine purpose. While the cosmological argument has limitations regarding his argument
as mentioned prior, he does seem to contradict himself when he says, "the first cause must be
explained as an uncaused cause, otherwise we are left with an infinite regress of causes" (51). This
implies that evil which McCloskey does believe in may have been from

St. Thomas Aquinas Argument On God
St. Thomas Aquinas is a famous philosopher from the medieval period who believed there was a
god. One of Aquinas significant works in philosophy was his argument that God exists. In Aquinas'
argument, or also known as Summa Theologica, he uses five arguments to support the claim that
God exist and four of them are cosmological argument. Cosmological arguments are arguments that
try to reason that god exists because of the universe or cosmos leads to the conclusion that god
exists. His first argument is the Argument From Motion. In the argument of motion Aquinas
observed that we live in a world and universe that things are continuously moving, and he also
noticed that to make something move something has to move or start it moving. To Aquinas this
means that everything that is moving must have been moved by something or someone and there
had to be a time when the thing wasn't moving. The mover for the beginning of everything in
Aquinas' argument is God. The second argument is the Argument From Causation which is very
similar to the Argument From Motion. Aquinas thoughts were that everything that is caused had to
be caused by something else. Nothing can cause it's self so there must be an thing that is uncaused
and to Aquinas that thing is God because it can't go back forever. The Third argument is The
Argument From Contingency. Contingency is a future or thing that could have not existed and
Aquinas believe that the world can't always be contingent because then it could have

Explain Aquinas' Cosmological Argument
Explain Aquinas' Cosmological Argument
The basis of the cosmological argument is that the universe cannot account for its own existence.
There must be a reason, the argument says, for the existence of the universe and the reason has to be
something which is not part of the physical world of time and space. The cosmological argument
was used by Thomas Aquinas (1225–74) in his five ways, which were ways of demonstrating the
existence of God through inductive argument based on observation and evidence.
In Aquinas' view, knowledge of God could be reached in two ways; one through revelation for
example, through the words of the Bible and the other is through our own human reason. Aquinas
thought that if we applied reason to the evidence that ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
It would have to be a being which is not cause and which depends on nothing else to continue to
exist and this would be

The Cosmological Argument For The Existence Of God
The cosmological argument sets out to prove that the universe could only have been created by God
and that therefore he exists. In this regard, I believe that it fails and is not successful. The argument
is: Everything that exists has a cause. The universe must have a cause. That cause is God. There are
problems with all premises of this argument and I will use the works of Hume, amongst others to
attack the cosmological argument. Whilst the argument is strong and has strong arguments put
forward by numerous people, whom believe that the universe could only come into existence if it
were caused by an uncaused causer, it is not strong enough to totally avoid criticism. Aquinas stated
that everything must have a cause, nothing is its own cause, a chain of causes ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
He states that contingent things cannot furnish the universe throughout its infinite existence so there
must be a point in time where contingent things all cease to exist at once. In which case, we would
expect to see nothing now, but this is plainly false as there are currently an abundance of contingent
things. Therefore there must be a necessary being that guarantees the continuing existence of
contingent beings and causes them. This must be God. John Mackie thinks it is fallacious to jump
from 'everything at some time does not exist' to 'at some time everything does not exist'. It is
certainly plausible to believe that there is in infinite series of contingent overlapping things in the
universe so there is no need for a necessary being.
Aquinas is making a clear connection between the argument from contingency and the argument
from causation, so some of the criticisms still apply. Aquinas is relying on reduction ad absurdium to
prove that infinite regress is impossible but Aquinas may not understand what infinite regress is.
Certainly, a finite series would need to come to an end with an unmoved mover but an infinite series
would just never reach an

Cosmological Argument Analysis
"Worldviews serve as the necessary foundation and framework for our thoughts and actions. Our
worldviews are the single greatest influence on the way we interpret our experiences and respond to
those experiences" (Crossway, 2014). People might change their worldview due to changes in their
life, education, and so many other things. I believe the more we know the more we have questions.
Some people ignore their questions, they try to convince themselves by accepting a specific
worldview to make their life easy. I had never have such these kind of easy acceptance, there were
always a lot of questions about the philosophy of life for me. I have practiced so many different
ways to find my answers, and during my experiences, I realized that I am ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
As defined by philosopher Paul Draper, naturalism is "the hypothesis that the natural world is a
closed system" in the sense that "nothing that is not a part of the natural world affects it"(Keith
Augustine). Naturalists believe that nature is all exists, and non–natural things like God, spirit, and
should do not exist. I believe that there should be a supernatural power, and I do not think that life is
all physical persuasive. Although the growth of technology and science help human to investigated
the natural causes and find the reason for them, merely still there are so many unsolved problems
that scientists have not found answer for

Cosmogony Vs Divine Craftsman
Creation by a divine craftsman is a theory of cosmogony means that which state that created by pre
existing substance and constructed all things from it. In other to creation by decree or creation from
nothing (creatio ex nihilo)is a theory of cosmogony means that creating by divine order or by the
word of command. Cosmogony is considered as the creation of the world.
This two theory of cosmogony have similarities because both theories describe how God created the
universe, human being, water, light, animals and earth. The difference is that creation by a divine
craftsman state that God form the world according to pre existing eternal shapes or plan. While
creation by decree or creation from nothing state that God creation was through

The Various Forms of the Cosmological Argument for the...
The Various Forms of the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God
The cosmological argument is a well established argument for the existence of God and it is also
known as the first cause argument.
The cosmological argument is based upon the belief that there is a first cause behind the existence of
universe and this was God. It has taken many forms and in the past has been presented in many
ways. So many philosophers have put their points across, philosophers like; Plato, Aquinas,
Socrates, Hume, Kant and many more.
The first person to put their point across was Plato. He argued that the power to produce the
movements plausibly comes before the power to receive it and pass it on. In ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
Both Aquinas and Craig deny the infinite and yet argue that God is infinite. Believers of the
argument point out that God is unique and that the laws of nature do not apply to God.
In the five ways Anthony Kenny said that Aquinas's principle that nothing moves itself goes against
the fact that people and animals move themselves. He stated that Newton's first law of motion, in
which movement can be explained by a body's own sluggishness from previous motion, disapproves
Aquinas's argument. It is possible for object to have uniform motion as well as to be in a state of
rest.
b)
The strengths of the Cosmological Argument lie in both its simplicity and easily comprehensible
concept that there cannot be an infinite number of causes to an event. Some arguments for God's
existence require more thought and training in terms and concepts, but this argument is basic and
simple. Also, it is perfectly logical to assert that objects do not bring themselves into existence and
must, therefore, have causes.
For must not the cause of existing things exist? We find ourselves faced with the possibility of an
infinite regress. If it is true of A that it is caused to exist by B, why may not B be caused to exist by
C, D, E...and so on ad infinitum? If there actually is a cause of

Summary Of The Cosmological Argument
In critiquing the article written by William Lane Craig title "The Cosmological Argument" let me
first define how some define the cosmological argument. In reading about the cosmological
argument it is basically an argument that begins with the existence of the universe and tries to prove
God's existence. Thomas Aquinas said it this way, (1) "everything in the universe is moved by
something else. Unless we can go back in time forever, with things being constantly moved by
something else, there must be a point where movement started." (Godwin) Aquinas goes on to say,
"there must be a Prime mover that began movement in the Universe, when there was nothing, and
this is God." (Godwin) In the bible, it states, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the
earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The author also supports his beliefs with the Kalam Cosmological Argument. He states, "Whatever
began to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist therefore, the universe has a cause." (Copan &
Meister) In the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson, "shallow men believe in luck or in circumstance.
Strong men believe in cause and effect." In support of the cosmological argument, the author states,
to suggest that things just pop into being uncaused out of nothing is to quit doing serious
metaphysics and resort to magic." In reading the material, the author highlights how God in all of
his wisdom and power set the earth in perfect motion in such a way that the laws are perfectly
balanced not only for human life but for coexistence of plants and animals and all living organisms.
Furthermore, if not for the right combination of laws then life as we know it would be

Analysis Of The Article ' On Being An Atheist
H. J McCloskey in his article, On Being an Atheist, is trying to show the readers are more
reasonable and comfortable belief than that of Christianity. In the article he also puts up an argument
concerning two theistic point of which is the cosmological and teleological argument. McCloskey
also talks about the problems resulting from all the evil in the world. He goes as far to point out this
evil in a world the God had made and blames God for it. Due to that fact and other issues, he
believes that it is irrational to live by faith. According to his work, proof is not really necessary part
to play a vital role in the belief of God. However, when it comes to providing proof concerning an
atheist point of view, he has picked the most ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In his work he states that believing in an uncaused first cause of the universe is a problem because
nothing in the universe brings us to that conclusion. The rationalization from cause–effect
understands a relation between things that are in existence, and will pass out of existence. If God
was to be taken part of the frame of causation already in motion, then it would belong to that which
would have caused by something else. That cause holds to that which is outside the framework of
causation. Concerning the cosmological argument McCloskey writes that "all we entitle to infer is
the existence of a cause commensurate with the effect to be explained, the universe, and this does
not entitle us to postulate on all–powerful, all–perfect uncaused cause." (McCloskey, 1968) This
would be true for there is no reason why to necessary infer a God person. The inference is of the
nature that suggest a cause of such magnitude that is practically God–like. McCloskey words don't
disprove the rational of a God. Entitlement not to call this cause "God" is neither entitlement to deny
calling the cause or considering it to be "God". Looking at the teleological argument, McCloskey
has tied the argument from design together. He is also at the same time rejecting both of them. He
does this because he thinks that mankind is not able nor have the ability to have a full understanding
about Creation. He's description of Creation is described by the theory of

Hume
Q. Explain Humes' criticisms of the cosmological argument (25 marks)
The cosmological argument is based on the principle of causation. In particular, it is put forward that
any existent thing must have a cause or reason for its existence and that there cannot be more in the
effect than there is in the cause. Hume challenges these assumptions in his Dialogues.
There are three main critiques that Hume makes of the argument. Firstly, he has general concerns
about the way it is structured, and believes that this structure is fallacious. Secondly, he has more
specific concerns related to causation and finally he raises challenges to do with the concepts of
contingency and necessity.
Hume's challenges to the structure of the cosmological ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
So the term 'necessary being' makes no sense, any being claimed to exist may or may not exist. In
Hume's own words "All existential propositions are synthetic."
Q. To what extent was Hume successful in his critique of the cosmological argument? (10 marks)
Hume makes some very important challenges to the Cosmological argument. One of the key areas
he questions is the argument's dependence upon what Leibniz named, the principle of sufficient
reason. In this principle an adequate explanation must be a total explanation. The universe requires
an explanation of itself as a whole but many would say, as Russell later told Copleston: "Then I can
only say that you're looking for something which can't be got, and which one ought not to expect to
get."
Also if we are only entitled to talk about causes when we have had experience of them, then this
argument would seem to be over–stretching itself in speculating upon what it cannot know.
On the other hand, there is of course a problem with stopping at a certain point and saying that we
should seek no further explanation, in that it is a basic presupposition of all scientific work.
However, even though a principle of rationality is that we can find an explanation for things, there is
no guarantee that there will be one. So, I think Hume significantly weakens forms of the argument
that depend on the principle of sufficient reason.
However, I think that Hume's criticisms of a necessary being

Scripture And Cosmogony
The Sacred Scripture and Cosmogony of Islam and Christianity In every religion around the world,
there are very important scriptures and beliefs on how the universe came into being. Christianity and
Islam are no different than any other religion in those aspects. They have similar thoughts on things
in the sacred scriptures they have, and they also have opposing views. Also, these two religions have
different views on the creation of the universe, both of these topics will be discussed here. It is
important to understand the views on the following topics by these two religions for a number of
reasons. Christianity and Islam are the two largest religions in the world, with approximately 1.9
billion people being Christian and 1.1 billion ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Much of the New Testament talks about the life of Jesus, and these books were written by Jesus'
disciples. The original texts that made up the Bible are gone or lost, and have been copied various
times to preserve the teachings. The Bible is broken down in ways like the Qur'an. First, it is broke
into two "Testaments", one is called the Old Testament, which was originally written in Hebrew. The
Old Testament talks about the creation of the world to the laws a person should follow. The second
half is called the New Testament, was written in Greek, and much of this talks about the life and
teachings of Jesus Christ. It also has "letters written by leaders of the early church" (Geoghegan,
14), and also has the end of the time prophecies. In each of the Testaments there are books (think of
the chapters of a novel), here are a total of 66 books in the Bible that we have today, in each book
there are also verses like in the Qur'an. The contemporary expression of the Christian Bible is just as
import as the Qur'an for a Muslim. There are a few slight differences though. Many people go to
church to praise and worship God and a pastor gives a lecture about a subject in the Bible, Muslims
would read a passage from the Qur'an and then explain how it applies to their lives. A Christian
could (and does) do this, but typically it isn't as rigid of a structure. However, there are many
different "branches" of Christianity from Baptist to Catholic, and they each have

The History of the Cosmological Argument for the...
Early elements of the Cosmological Argument were developed by the world renowned philosophers
Plato and Aristotle between the years 400 and 200 BC (Boeree). Medieval philosopher Saint
Thomas Aquinas expanded upon their ideas in the late 13th Century when he wrote, "The Five
Ways." Since then the Cosmological Argument has become one of the most widely accepted and
criticized arguments for the existence of God. My objective in this paper is to explain why the
Cosmological Argument is a reasonable argument for the existence of God, the importance of
understanding that it is an inductive a posteriori argument, and defend my position against common
opposing arguments. To begin, as living human beings on the planet earth we can ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
This means that he relies only on himself to exist. On the other hand humans and all other natural
things in the Universe are considered contingent. An impossibility would be created if this was not
the case because a non–contingent contingent would be created which is contradictory and not
logical (Thompson, 1955, pp. 345–346). Contrary to Saint Thomas, Theodore Schick Jr. argues in,
"The 'Big Bang' Argument for the Existence of God," which is included in our text God, that not all
things are caused. He points out that research in the area of quantum electrodynamics reveals,
"...That an electron, positron, and photon occasionally emerge spontaneously in a perfect vacuum.
When this happens, the three particles exist for a brief time, and then annihilate each other, leaving
no trace behind" (God, 153). Schick's argument against Saint Thomas argues is that since research
has found evidence that–for a fraction of a millisecond–an electron, positron, and photon seem to
appear on their own makes something in existence non–contingent. This effectively debunks Saint
Thomas' nearly 750 year old argument that all things in nature have a cause, right? Not necessarily.
While this finding of modern scientific research cannot yet be refuted or overlooked, inductive
experience still strongly supports the causal premise. Evidence of a cause behind all natural things
still

Cosmological Arguments On The Existence Of A God
For thousands of years man has pondered a question. A question that is very important as the answer
affects everything that mankind knows about morality, the universe, and the meaning of life itself.
This question has been asked by men and women from all walks of life and it would seem that for
every question answered concerning this topic a dozen more arise. Philosophers to Scientists to
Kings have all pondered this question and this question is whether or not God exists. Now there are
various conceptions of God within philosophy, but the most simple and widely accepted definition
would likely be a "metaphysically necessary being." That will be the definition of God for this
paper. Numerous arguments have been put forth for and against the existence of a God, and some
can be grouped together according to their type. Examples of these arguments range from
teleological arguments to axiological arguments to cosmological arguments (to name a few). The
following paper will focus on cosmological arguments, in particular the Argument from
Contingency. Ancient philosophers would look at the stars and would marvel at their beauty and
would point to their structure as an indication of the order within the universe. These ancient
thinkers would take this as a sign of the existence of gods/god. With time came those who put forth
arguments that drew from what was seen in the night sky to argue for the existence of their
god/gods. Notable names like Plato and Aristotle are just a few

On Being an Atheist, by H.J. McCloskey Essay
In the article " On Being an Atheist," H.J. McCloskey attempts to inform his readers that the belief
in atheism is a "much more comfortable belief" by effectively using a disdainful rhetoric towards
theists and their faith. McCloskey delves into both the Cosmological and Teleological arguments,
which within he criticizes the arguments and to further his argument against theism, he also presents
the Problem of Evil and why evil cannot possibly exist with a perfect God being the creator of
universe. What will be displayed in this essay are the counter–arguments to McCloskey's criticisms
and the attempt to discredit his claims that regard the "comfortable" position that lies within atheism
and its arguments. H.J. McCloskey utilizes the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The argument discussed is one that has an unending list of contingent beings, all of which need a
cause for existence. According to the article, McCloskey assumes that the argument calls for an
uncaused cause to start an infinite number of contingent beings. McCloskey believes that each
contingent being simply exists with an infinite number of causes that eventually lead back to a case
of chance. In "Philosophy of Religion" by Stephen Evans, Evans refers to this way of thinking as a
"brute fact." According to Evans, by claiming this stance would turn the partial argument into a
whole argument and concurrently, "this will require the defender of the argument to claim that the
contingency of the whole of the universe can validly be inferred from the contingency of all its
parts." Where McCloskey's ignorance further takes a violent curve against acquiring knowledge
about the beginning of the universe connects to his argument is when he said "This means that the
first cause must be explained as being a necessarily existing being, one who cannot exist." What he
is alluding to, and is also the focal point of his disapproval of theism, is that humans do not have the
right to claim that a being created the universe. If an atheist can claim that there is no such existence
of God, then why is it that a theist cannot claim the existence of a God? In the

Cosmogonies : The Creation Of The World
Cosmogonies play a part in the universe; it's the creation of mankind and universe myths. These
myths portray a part in culture today. "Cosmogonies ––– stories about how the world began––– have
been told by almost every culture in the world" (23). It affects the western culture and eastern
culture and how social order is established. Social order is primary the basis of how humankind
operate; it has links to behavior, morals, customs and values. It brings the foundation to mankind as
a whole. Cosmogonies have established a lot of set beliefs, morals, and goals for humans.
Humankind cannot lead without example there has to be something that links them to how they
organize themselves somehow. For example, the creation of heaven and earth, the belief that
creation did not come ex nihilo, or from nothing "Ancient cosmogonies do not usually begin with
creation ex nihilo ("from nothing") (25). The question is always proposed that where has human
come from or where has humans learn its social stance structure, and where did religon come from?
Was it all intuition?
Intuitions or not these ideals of Cosmogonies exist and it plays a role by invoking people's cultures
such as in religion, Christianity, Buddhism, Shintoism, came from cosmogonies and it also brings in
social order.
Social order is an idea that is made of from a sequence of age and keeps bringing more ideals to
construct a better and bigger social order. The Epic of Gilgamesh has some themes that could play
into how humans constructed a better social structure and not only that a religion based on the texts.
Gilgamesh is one of stories that have ideals those thoughts that have to do with how humans
constructed society and behave today.
The Epic of Gilgamesh is a story that could be in fact teaches us social order or morals all together.
The story has many themes that can be portrayed in today's life. There are themes such as love,
honor, religion, pride, and symbols.
This story is about a god that's full of pride and is masculine. The god is Gilgamesh and king of
Uruk, A god that was born with great arrogance and selfishness. "Gilgamesh sounds the tocsin for
his amusement, arrogance has no bounds by day or night" (Sanders 4). Everything he'd done in the

What Is The First Cause Argument
The first cause argument is based on cause and effect, it attests that the universe must have a cause,
and that this cause is God. The first cause argument is also known as the cosmological argument.
The universe could not have come into being without something that started it. Therefore, this
argument does show that God exists. This essay will analyse the first cause argument, provide proof
of why God is shown that he exists by the first cause argument and, explore the objections and
counter objections that people have when it comes to this argument.
The first cause argument shows the existence of God through the statement that the universe must
have a cause and as result, it is impossible for there to be an infinite cycle of causes so therefore,
God exists because he is the first cause. The strength of this argument is that it indicates the need for
"something" in order for there to be a beginning, but why conclude that this "Something" is God? I
conclude that this ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
We have the gift of existence, and our existence was attained from our causes. If things and people
came into existence using their own nature without it being passed down to them through other
people there would be no need for a first cause but, people do not exist from their own nature which
means that they have a cause which goes to show that there is Indeed a first cause and that this cause
must be God. The universe only has beings that do not exist on their own essence, that are not
eternal or necessary, all beings in the universe need a cause. Beings that are not self–explanatory,
eternal or necessary are called dependent or contingent. Furthermore, a being who is self–
explanatory is called a necessary being. Dependent beings need causes. If the independent being
does not exist, then all the other dependent beings that rely on it will not exist. Dependent beings do
exist and therefore an independent being – God, does

Cosmogony Research Paper
Civilizations views on the religious belief of Christianity are very odd in its self. However this is not
what I am here to talk about these days. I'd like to inform you about the cosmogony of the different
traditions of Christianity, Islam, and Judaic beliefs however the form of cosmogony that I'm
speaking of the Christians and the Islamic belief almost the same thing in these aspects. They do
however have different views on how the universe was made.
Here is a brief history of the orthodox of Christian beliefs; these are labeled as Catholic's,
Protestants, Baptists and other core beliefs that there is an afterlife. They do believe in hell and this
is for the wicked ones. Judaic beliefs are different for example they believe that death is not the end
of life, Judaism is focused on the afterlife instead of the now life. Because of this an Orthodox Jew
does believe that a soul goes to a place like heaven and sometimes can be reincarnated. Now the
Muslim belief is different from both Christian faith and the Judaic belief, for an example they
believe that death is a complete life cycle end and it is a beginning of a period of lull until Allah
comes back and judges the living and the dead. Muslims believe that they can see God and ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Sometimes with the framework of the codes they are only applied to certain situations. The base of
Christian moral code is the belief that God created all things and to Jesus who taught us on how to
live. Most of the people in the Christian faith do try and follow the Ten Commandments, and
following the bible. Morals with these "rules" are sometimes justified for people to believe a simple
recreation of what they want to believe. Ethical assumption can be universal; the infinite essentials
of beliefs about God and mankind are principles that people take out of context most

The Argument For God's Existence
Introduction
The Bible begins with the book of Genesis stating, "In the beginning God created the heavens and
the earth." The Bible doesn't begin with an argument for the reality of God, but states the truth of
His existence. The Jews accepted the truth of an eternal God, so the authors rarely spent time with
an argument for His existence. However, today in our society, it is usually required to begin
explaining the gospel with an argument for God's existence. 1 Peter 3:15 instructs believers to,
"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope
that you have." For the believer, it is a good practice to have an understanding of the arguments for
God's existence. It is important to realize that ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
No other species on earth displays our level of intelligence, creativity, and emotion.
One aspect of the anthropological argument reveals that mankind is so widely different from our
world is we were created in the image of God, and because of this we have been given certain
attributes that separate us from all other forms of life. We were not physically made in God's
likeness, because scripture tells us that God is spirit and we should not assume that God's physical
appearance is similar to a man's. It is our non–physical attributes that made in the image of God.
Our intelligence, imagination, emotion, creativity, and morality are many of the attributes of God
that He has blessed us with.
Theological Definition
The theological definition of the anthropological (anthropos meaning "man") argument is based on
the human condition, of man 's basic moral standards and the constant need for there to be a higher
being. It is similar to the cosmological argument in that if man has a desire for God and a conscience
when offending him; apparently these have their basis in God and not in man. This argument was
perhaps most famously theorized by Blaise Pascal, who suggested that it was a better "bet" to
believe in God than not to.
Biblical Foundation
The Biblical Foundations of the anthropological argument are: (1) That man is the product of a
living being: In Genesis chapter 2 it says that "God formed man of the dust of the ground and

Mcclosky On Being An Aetheist Analysis
In today's society there is a lot of skepticism regarding the belief in God and his existence. There has
been and will always be the question of whether or not we have a God who is all seeing and all
knowing. In the article "On Being an Aetheist" by H J McCloskey the existence of God is
challenged through dismissing the arguments of cosmological and teological evidence. McClosky's
main objective in the article is to give an account that if God existed then how are there so many evil
and unfathomable issues happening around the world? In the article McClosky refers to the
cosmological, theological and the argument from design as "proofs" and states many times that there
is no definitive case that God actually exists. By stating he establishes ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
He uses different "acts of God" to make his claim. These acts include earthquakes, and disease. He
serves the question of how someone can find comfort in the one who allowed these acts to happen.
After reading "The absurdity to Life without God" by William Craig, I was brought to the
conclusion that life without God would be meaningless. If there was life without God there would
be no reason for life. Atheists have created their own meaning that comforts them but they have no
evidence of their conclusions. Man cannot live without value or meaning. McClosky's claim about
atheism being a comfort is lacking explanation and evidence. I disagree with his claim because
people find comfort in different things. Finding comfort in God is a way that many people deal with

Philosophy of Religion
The Cosmological argument argues for the existence of God a posteriori based on the apparent order
in the universe. For Aristotle, the existence of the universe needs an explanation, a cause, as it could
not have come from nothing. Nothing comes from nothing so since there is something, there must
have been some other thing that is its cause. Aristotle rules out an infinite progression of causes, so,
that led to the conclusion that there must be a First Cause. Likewise with motion, there must have
been a first cause; Aristotle calls this the 'Prime Mover'. There is a God, says Aristotle –for how else
does motion begin? Whilst this argument does generally offer some support for the existence of
God, it does not prove his existence.
Aquinas ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Thus, Hume claimed that it is not possible to prove the existence of a being who is unknowable and
existentially different from all other beings.
A further argument against the cosmological argument is presented by Anthony Kenny. According to
his analysis, the cause of change must possess a property which will initiate the change. For
example, for something to become hot, the thing that causes the change must itself possess the
property of heat. But modern science rejects this argument, for instance, microwaves can generate
heat without themselves being hot. Therefore, it is not foolhardy to argue that the universe exists and
as a result of highly finely–tuned probabilities, from simple compounds to what we see today. But
still, Descartes reconstruction of the argument seems to postulate that, the cause of change must
possess a property which will initiate the change, which is in direct conflict with Kenny's point. Yet,
Aquinas says Kenny is not giving a straightforward metaphysical analysis, but an analysis which
presumes a standard, and also doubtful physics.
Overall, the cosmological argument, while making a good attempt to prove the existence of God is
largely unsuccessful chiefly because it makes huge empirical assumptions. Firstly, it assumes that
the world does, in fact, exist. And secondly, we cannot prove that a world exists on the basis of a
posteriori premises, therefore cannot infer from it that it has a cause, and

Clarke 's Cosmological Argument On The Existence Of God
Clarke's Cosmological argument has been around for multiple centuries–the purpose of this
argument being to try to prove the existence of God. Although this argument sounds valid–meaning
that "IF premises 1 and 2 are true, then the conclusion must be true" – while many people have
accepted this argument, it has also caused a lot of questioning and skepticism, mainly because of
what the Cosmological Argument uses to support its argument–the Principle of Sufficient reason.
Before determining whether the PSR effectively supports Clarke's Cosmological argument, one
must know the Cosmological Argument's premises and what they mean. Premise 1 of Clarke's
Cosmological Argument asserts that every being is either dependent or independent–meaning ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
For example, if you see a dog at a veterinary, you know that the dog exists due to its parents
(component 1 of the Principle of Sufficient Reason). You also know that there is an explanation for
the dog being at the veterinary: the dog might be sick or is going to go through a medical procedure
(component 2 of the Principle of Sufficient Reason).
Although the Principle of Sufficient Reason seems to be straight forward–it is heavily questioned
and fails to effectively support Clarke's Cosmological arguments for many reasons, one of them
being its failure to think about or recognize Brute Facts. Brute Facts are things that can't be
explained; in this case, the inability to explain the existence of a being. An example of a Brute Fact
is God, since his existence can't be explained but his existence is considered to be true by many
people. Although it has not been explicitly confirmed that Brute Facts actually exist, the Principle of
Sufficient Reason and its premises fails to acknowledge the possibility of Brute facts existing,
therefore making the PSR to be less certain and accepted since it requires that everything has to
have an explanation. This failure to acknowledge Brute Facts by the PSR also makes it a weak
argument, therefore also making it not effectively support Clarke's Cosmological Argument.
In addition to

H. J Mccloskey's Article 'On Being An Atheist'
H. J. McCloskey, an atheist author, wrote an article titled "On Being an Atheist" which explains why
he is an atheist, his views on God, and why He believes that being an atheist is more comfortable
and reasonable than believing in Christianity. While arguing against the proofs within the
cosmological argument and teleological argument, McCloskey does not acknowledge the
ontological argument. He then goes on to say how belief in God is not necessary and "living by
faith" is irrational. My goal of this paper is to examine his article, point out the flaws, and prove that
his arguments do not prove atheism to be true. McCloskey refers to "proofs" as an argument that
favors God but cannot make a case for God. He then goes on to argue that those "proofs" should not
be used and discarded. Dr. Foreman, however, suggested the accumulative case approach, which
tells us to collect the proofs and evidence that says God, in fact, exists. One main reason that we
cannot be one hundred percent sure when we say that God exists is the possibility of us being
wrong. On one hand, Dr. Foreman argues that things that take place around us are evidence of God.
However, McCloskey says that the case for God cannot be proved through Christianity. In response
to McCloskey, we believe in many things that are unseen but have ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
These arguments both refer to a creator of some sort– whether that is God or another outside force.
The teleological argument, however, suggests that there is purpose within the order of the universe.
McCloskey believes that both arguments, the cosmological and teleological arguments, cannot prove
that God is the ultimate designer. He also claims that there is not enough, if any, proof of a designer.
To counter his argument, I would argue that there is not enough proof to prove that there is not a
creator– however, not one side can be absolutely sure that they are completely

Notes On Sherlock Holmes And The Scientific Community
Within the scientific community some people believe that you cannot have a scientific mind and
hold to religious beliefs (p. 87). They come to this assumption because they see religious faith as a
form of mental illness, which is limited to a certain population (religious people only) (p. 72).2
When reasoning logically one most understand that not all things can be proven wrong or right.
Sometimes things do not lend themselves to a right or a wrong answer. However a person can see
where a line of thought leads too, which delivers a person to a certain conclusion even though it may
not be a right or wrong.
Every mystery and caper that Sherlock Holmes solved he credited it to deduction or elementary
logic. However McGrath notes that ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
An endless series of causes and events does not make sense. This would mean a continual causal
loop which cannot exist, nor could a causal chain of infinite length exist without there being
something to first cause the loop to begin. This would require some kind of "unrestricted" or
"ultimate" being which we Christians and some philosophers call God.
The Apostle Paul speaks about natural revelation in Romans 1:20 and Albert Einstein alludes to
natural revelation3 when he says, "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this
but expressed it clearly. If there is something in me called religious then it is the unbounded
admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." With natural revelation
we see that one can logically construct the belief in a God by simply observing the things present in
nature.
The prevalent acceptance that the universe had a chronological origin meaningfully shifted the
stance in favor of belief in a "first cause" or an intelligent designer of the universe, which caused the
universe to appear (Pg. 84).2 Many scientist hold to the theory that the universe is continually
moving out away from a central focus point. What is this central focal point? Christians can point to
this being the creator or the creation form which God created the universe Ex nihilo.
Next is the quest for the best

Religions of Judaism, Christianity, Islam
1.
God to the people of the big three monotheist religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) see god as an
all–knowing, all–seeing, and all–powerful being.
I believe that that the Cosmological argument gives good reason to believe in the existence of God.
The Cosmological argument focuses on everything having a cause except one thing that started it
all, this starter is known as the "Prime Mover". The Prime Mover is the one that starts everything
without anything having a previous effect on it. With that people have assumed that the logical
answer to who the prime mover is, is God. This to me seems the most logical of arguments because
although there is the idea of eternity and an eternal cycle there has to be a starting point. I do not
believe the argument is successful.
The reason that the argument does not succeed is because what proof is there that the prime mover is
an all powerful all mighty being? There could be alternate reasons related to science, The Big Bang
Theory, which could also be a reason. One of Aquinas's arguments against the cosmological
argument discussed that since everything in nature had a time where it did not exist there had to be a
time where it was nothing to bring anything into being. His argument was if this was possible there
was nothing around to bring the universe into being in the first place. Due to this a being such as
God is not likely to have existed before to create it. Who created God? The only thing that could be
done to better prove

Aquinas Cosmological Argument Analysis
In the Cosmological argument, we are presented with a very sound argument. In this argument,
Aquinas is answering the question of why there has to be a first cause and why the first cause is
God. He tells us that everything that exist in this universe needs an explanation for why it exist.
Secondly, Aquinas tells us that all the objects that exist now were caused to exist by other objects
before them and this cycle goes on. Thirdly, he tells us the universe couldn't possibly be something
that goes on infinitely. Aquinas thinks there has to be something that caused this– a first cause.
Lastly, Aquinas tells us the only possible thing that caused all of this is God. In this paper, I will be
defending Aquinas' Cosmological Argument. Aquinas' first premise is everything, every person,
plant, or object, that exist in this universe needs an explanation for why it exist. I believe there is a
logical reason for why everything exist and everything that happens has an explanation. For
example, we need water to survive. If we don't have water, we will eventually die of dehydration.
We need some of the smallest things in life. If we were to apply this premise to the universe, a
'small' thing many people don't ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
If we were to apply this to the universe, a good example of this would be human beings. Human
beings seem to be in a cyclical process. This process consist of being born, living your life, having
children, and dying. Every human being is born to a set of parents. Every human being from birth
until death lives their live. Many people settle down and have children. Other people adopt or don't
have children. And hopefully after living a long, well–lived life, we die. Human beings that are born
in this world were caused to exist by their parents. Their parents were caused to exist in the world
because of their parents. This cycle seems to go on

Explain The First Cause Argument
The first cause argument is based on cause and effect, it attests that the universe must have a cause,
and that this cause is God. The first cause argument is also known as the cosmological argument.
The universe could not have come into being without something that started it. Therefore, this
argument does show that God exists. This essay will analyse the first cause argument, provide proof
of why God is shown that he exists by the first cause argument and, explore the objections and
counter objections that people have when it comes to this argument.
The first cause argument shows the existence of God through the statement that the universe must
have a cause and as result, it is impossible for there to be an infinite cycle of causes so therefore,
God exists because he is the first cause. The strength of this argument is that it indicates the need for
"something" in order for there to be a beginning, but why conclude that this "Something" is God? I
conclude that this ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
We have the gift of existence, and our existence was attained from our causes. If things and people
came into existence using their own nature without it being passed down to them through other
people there would be no need for a first cause but, people do not exist from their own nature which
means that they have a cause which goes to show that there is Indeed a first cause and that this cause
must be God. The universe only has beings that do not exist on their own essence, that are not
eternal or necessary, all beings in the universe need a cause. Beings that are not self–explanatory,
eternal or necessary are called dependent or contingent. Furthermore, a being who is self–
explanatory is called a necessary being. Dependent beings need causes. If the independent being
does not exist, then all the other dependent beings that rely on it will not exist. Dependent beings do
exist and therefore an independent being – God, does

Comparisons Of Ancient Cosmogonies, Platonic And Biblical...
Comparisons of Ancient Cosmogonies
Cosmogony myths and stories are seen throughout many cultures and religions and more often then
not they overlap with one another sharing many similarities. Although they share similarities they
can also have stark differences. This essay will look at the similarities and differences of the
Hesiodic, Platonic and Biblical cosmogonies and why this may be, focusing on divine
craftsmanship/creation of the world, the creation of man and woman and paradise and the humans
fall from it.
Firstly, the overarching similarity between these 3 myth traditions is their purpose. These myths
were there to provide answers and to explain why the world is the way it is, therefore a reason
behind many of the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Although all traditions have chaos brought to order the obvious difference between having creators
and Gaia mother earth, is the idea of this ordered world being innately good or bad. The creator
myths paint the world as inherently good, for example, in Genesis it is Yahweh's will that the
universe would be good – "and God saw that it was good" (Genesis 1.10 ). Similarly in the Timaeus,
Plato has the Demiurge and the idea of good fused together – "He was good... and being free from
jealousy he desired that all things be like himself" (Timaeus 4). In contrast to the above examples,
Hesiod's Theogony holds a very pessimistic view of the world explaining it to be inherently bad.
This is particularly seen in his account of the five ages of men, which will be discussed later, and in
the generational rivalry that is ongoing from the beginning of the myth. It is suggested by E.E
Pender that Plato's Timaeus myth is aiming to replace the 'moral chaos' that is seen in the Theogony,
as he could not believe that the world is built around deception and violence. It can be argued that
Plato wrote this new creation myth to make the world good but also in a way that science and math
could be added. It is unclear if Hesiod made up the Theogony or simply wrote a well–known story
down.
A big

The Ontological, Cosmological, And Design Argument
Throughout many centuries philosophers have argued over the existence of God. In today's society
many people tend to hesitate in believing in a God because of the new scientific discoveries. For
example, in the mid 1990s scientists built the Hubble telescope which revealed that there were
billions of galaxies in our universe, this discovery led some people to question how can one divine
being create so much and yet have a personal connection with everyone in the world. Which, in
result, may take some scientific explanation to strengthen one's belief in God, but for those who
believe there is a benevolent God they do not need science to show proof that he exists because of
their morals and beliefs they have been raised to follow. In this paper I will prove that God does
exist by explaining the ontological, cosmological, and design argument. The ontological argument
was an argument created by Saint Anselm. Anselm argued that if we thought about what God is and
what he can do then we know he must exist. What Anselm means by this is that if our minds can
think of something so great like God, we should realize that an all–powerful God must exist in
reality. Anselm states that God is, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." This quote
means if we can comprehend who God is, then there has to be a more powerful God than in our
minds, in reality because if God is such a perfect being, then this implies that he must be by
definition as well.
God is independent of the

Argument Vs Cosmological Argument
When looking back of how all of the arguments in philosophy started we must at least be willing to
admit the universe had to come from somewhere. The Cosmological argument would be one that
most of the universe will agree with, the existence that God did had some part in the universe. We
all do not have to agree on the amount of input that God has had, we just know that he did have
some part in it. The other problem is that no one is actually saying there is a true existence of God.
Anything that exists needs to have a cause. There will always be nay Sayers that will put an
argument to everything that has anything to do with the beginning of time. Through reading and
beliefs there will always be a theory argument. If we are looking for the ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
This will lead the believer of any side of the argument to state that the creation is indeed a fact. The
evidence will be shown by the belief of evolution and not lack any of evidence shown in the
argument of evolution. By believing in the creation the theory of creation as on that at some point
has by an intelligent design.
We have learned that not everyone is going to be a believer of the beginning of time. We do need to
understand we may not have to agree with the fact that the inference of the existence of God comes
from the existence of the universe. The first argument will be when they attempt to infer that God
must exist as the first or ultimate cause of the universe. We will have to side with the temporal
argument that the universe has had to have a beginning or a first moment of existence. We also have
to be able to admit that God is involved and continues to be involved in his

Essay On Anselm's Ontological Argument
Ontological Argument
Anselm's ontological argument states that: We define God as the greatest of all conceived beings.
A being that is necessary is greater than a being that is not necessary.
If God exists as an idea, but not in reality, then we can imagine something greater than Him.
If God is a perfect being, we cannot imagine a being greater than Him.
Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
In Anselm's argument, necessary existence means that the existence of something is not dependent
on any other being. For God to have necessary existence, then his existence is not dependent on
anything. In nature, almost every living being is dependent on something – such as a parent. Thus,
making God the only being to have necessary existence.
However, there are many reasons that the ontological argument can be deemed invalid. It
equivocates between different frames of reference. "Nothing greater that can be thought" is not the
same as "nothing greater than can exist." This argument only really shows that the greatest thing to
exist in reality will always be "greater" than its imaginary counterpart, which is not true as anything
that exists in reality is more susceptible to flaws, but a ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This is an example of the "Fallacy of Composition," define as the error of assuming that what is true
of a member of a group is also true for the group as a whole. Hume also states that the qualities that
make God's non–existence possible belongs to the universe, so he questions why we assume a
necessary creator rather than a necessary universe. He states that an existing being can also not exist,
so a necessary being does not make sense regarding that

Digging into Kalam’s Cosmological Argument for the...
William Lane Craig puts forth an argument for the existence of God in Kalam's Cosmological
Argument. In this, Craig argues that the universe began to exist and the cause of the universe's
existence must have been God. Kalam's Cosmological Argument is trying to demonstrate the
impossibility of an actual infinite, which states that the universe is eternal – it has always been here.
Kalam's Cosmological Argument goes as such: Whatever begins to exist has a cause – The universe
began to exist – Therefore, the universe has a cause. And this cause is God.
The first premise of Kalam's Cosmological Argument – whatever begins to exist has a cause – must
be true. By denying the first premise of the argument, one is denying a natural law. The law is the
Law of Conservation of Matter, which states that matter can neither be created nor destroyed.
However, the second premise has had much controversy. How does one know that the world began
to exist, instead of it always existing? There is plenty of science to prove it. The Second Law of
Thermodynamics states that we are slowly running out of energy; therefore, if the universe was
eternal, it most likely would have run out of energy by now. It has also been discovered that our
world and universe are constantly expanding, and that if it has been expanding throughout the past it
could not be infinite. There would be a point in the past in which it all began. So one can conclude
that the universe, along with time and space, began to exist.

The Meaning Of The Word Proof Essay
Foreman address the meaning of the word "proof" in the context of questions concerning God's
existence or non–existence. He specifies that in this context, "proof" does not mean as it does in its
more natural context, mathematics, a demonstration that within the agreed–on axioms follows
necessarily, but rather something else, and nevertheless of value. A "proof" of God, says Foreman,
are defeasible, yet have not (yet) been defeated. They are valuable because they offer the best
explanation for what we observe in nature. McCloskey does not share Foreman's sense of "proof."
His line of thought runs as follows: since the "proofs" of God's existence cannot be definitively
established – they are defeasible, unlike mathematical proofs – they should be abandoned. This
seems like a totalitarian gesture, since we know that multiple, often paradoxical senses, can run
through the same signifier, in this case, "proof," yet to McCloskey, because the sense of "proof" that
he demands is not pertinent in this context, the word is mistaken, and therefore the arguments and
whatever values they may share ought to be abandoned. This is not a strong position, but rather
reflective of a miserly relationship to words' multiple senses. McCloskey nevertheless attends to
specific claims presented in each of the more popular proofs for God's existence. Regarding the
Cosmological Proof, he says, the existence of the world does not entitle one to hold that, since the
world consists of an

Cosmogony Research Paper
Cosmogony – Origin of the Universe
The Shinto manner of the Kami is the call of the religion of Japan that became first used within the
6th century. Shinto has no founder, no reliable sacred texts, and no formalized system of doctrine.
Fisher, 2014, p. 222.
Nature of God
Shinto of Kami isn't god or gods. They're spirits which might be concerned with humans and admire
our interest and need us to be happy and treated accurately. They'll intervene in our lives to carry
benefits like fitness, business achievement, and excellent exam outcomes. Fisher, p. 224. View of
Human Nature
Shinto: Human beings reply to the silent and provocative beauty of the natural order, and they're
aware of Kannagara. They return to existence in a comparable manner; with the aid of the following
approaches to the Kami, and expressing Kannagara of their lives. Shinto is dwelling consistent with
the natural float of the universe and could gain and broaden via doing so." Fisher, 2014, p. 226. ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Impurity is something which separates us from Kami of the creative and harmonizing power, and
that makes us impure are Tsumi in pollutants or sin. Fisher, 2014, p. 232.
View of "Salvation."
Shinto is all forms of Kami, and there's no heaven that the Kami stays among us. When you die it
isn't always of actual death and it does not believe in life after the loss of life. Death is the end and
all of us who dies turns into Kami. Fisher, 2014, p. 224.
View of after life
Shinto believes the human spirit is to remain the spirit of Kami forever. The spirits stay in some
other global, and maximum recognized another world is named the other international of Heaven,
wherein the Supreme famous and renowned deities dwell. Contrasting this world is the alternative
world, which is believed to connect with the lifeless. Fisher, 2014, p.

The Cosmological Argument On The Existence Of God
Theories have arisen from many different philosophers trying to explain the existence of God; the
Cosmological Argument is one such theory. The Cosmological Argument has been changed and
reviewed for years; however, the focus has always stayed the same. The universe is a prime example
that there is a God. A simple Cosmological argument states that:
Everything that exists has a cause of its existence. The universe exists.
Therefore,
The universe has a cause of its existence. If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause
is God.
Therefore,
God exists (NA, 2008).
In my opinion, this argument has very basic and broad statements that may be difficult or impossible
to be proven false. "Everything that exists has a cause of its existence" and "The universe exists" are
two statements that can be difficult to prove incorrect. We know that nothing is made without a
reason behind it, and nothing is made without a process leading up to its creation. "The universe
exists" cannot be proven false without some very abstract thinking involved. We know that the
universe exists because you and I exist, everything around us exists, and the world on which we live
and the universe in which we live exist. We can conclude that "the universe has a cause of its
existence" because we can prove that the universe exists by stating that humans and objects around
us exist. In my opinion, we can can also conclude that everything in the universe has a cause as to
why it was created

Does The First Cause Argument Show That God Exist

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Denise Enriquez

More from Denise Enriquez (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Does The First Cause Argument Show That God Exist