The Cosmological Argument and the Existence of Gods
Philosophy Class
Except for the first page, you can use outside source, and the rest of the main article can only use textbooks and materials on ppt
ppt and textbooks are at https://blackboard(dot)syracuse(dot)edu/
Account
Password will be provided.
Found after login
1.couses
2. phi.107.m100
3.content
The top is the textbook, the rest is ppt
Then which ones read in the textbook are on syllabus
• Write a 3-4 page (double spaced) paper (approx 1,000-1,200 words) that critically examines one of the 4 main traditional arguments for or against God's existence: • Ontological Argument • Cosmological Argument (Simple Basic version or First Cause version) • Design Argument • Argument from Evil (Mackie version or Possible World version)
• Include a first page -do not count it as one of the 3-4 pages of the paper (or as part of the word count)-on which you give an explicit statement in numbered premise/ conclusion format of the specific argument you are evaluating in your paper. You can use any of the statements of the relevant arguments given in lecture, in the textbook, or your own formulation-OK to "cut and paste" argument from lecture Powerpoint. (If you use an explicit statement from a source other than the lecture or textbook, be sure to cite your source.) Do NOT cut and paste anywhere else in the paper. Outside research is not encouraged.
The main point of the paper is to explain why you believe the argument is successful OR is not successful in establishing its conclusion.
• You should first give a clear complete explanation of the argument in your own words. Explain the idea behind the argument, its various steps, and how it is supposed to work.
Then use the main part of your paper to assess the argument-
• What possible objections might be raised against the argument? In particular,
-Is the reasoning valid (or strong if inductive)? (If not valid (or strong), say which specific inferences, (steps of reasoning) are not valid (or strong) and explain.)
-Are all its premises true? If challenging premises, say which premise(s) you reject and what your reasons are.
• Could the argument be defended against those objections? How? Play "Ping Pong".
• Sum up your overall evaluation/conclusion at the end. Do you believe the argument is successful? unsuccessful? uncertain whether it succeeds? Sum up reasons you believe that.
Citation: For lecture or textbook readings-OK to just cite in parenthesis eg (Lecture) or (Anslem, textbook p#). For other sources give author name & date in parenthesis and complete citation at end of paper: author, title, date , journal/publisher or web address.
PHI 107 First Paper: The Cosmological Argument (First Cause Version) and the Existence of Gods
Name:
Discussion section day & time,
TA name:
Introduction
First developed by St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), the cosmological argument is considered the most popular argument in proofing the existence of God. According to Aquinas, everything in the cosmos has a cause. Premises surrounding Aquinas argument are:
There exists a series of events
All these series events exist as caused and not as uncaused
There is a necessary being who is the cause of all the contingent beings.
According to St. Thomas Aquinas, the conclusion is that there exists a being who stands as the central cause of the whole series of beings, God.
First Cause Argument
Aquinas’s first cause is founded on the observation that a universe exists and everything in it is subject to change. Therefore, it is logically valid to argue that these things have been caused to be in motion by something with things in motion. But while things are in motion as postulated, there can never be an infinite chain of things in motion as well as infinite things causing things to be in motion (Speak, 2006). If any, the existence of an infinite chain would certainly make it impossible to monitor or observe the motion we follow. If we moved back to things we observed in motion to their cause and then to the cause of that motion and so on, it means we will continually move back to Infinitum. The argument notes that there is always change in our world, and this change has always been the effect of some other causes.
Ideally, for everything, there has to be a starting point and not an Infinitum, meaning that if the cause and effect lacked a starting point, it would be hard to account for the motions we observe on a day-to-day basis. Therefore, there must be a starting point and a first cause that set all other things in motion for everything in motion (Aquinas, n.d.). The first cause, which is also the unmoved mover, must have been uncaused for us to solve the problem of infinite regression. For us to account for the motion observed, it is ideal to argue that another entity did not cause the first cause. For Aquinas, the first cause or the unmoved mover is God, and there is no other entity before Him. Nothing caused the first force to exist because, unlike other forces, He is eternal. According to Aquinas, God is the entity that designed and set in motion everything around us.
Objections against the Cosmological Argument
While the cosmological argument is a posteriori argument that begins with a premise based on observation, not everyone will accept the first cause argument. The first question leaves everyone with a major question: “if there is indeed a cause for everything, then what caused the first cause (God) as alleged?” If God is an exception and does not require a cause or mover, then one could also argue that our universe is equally eternal and does not need a God to exist. Additionally, if the first cause is uncaused and God is perceived to exist forever then, it is also true to say that the universe has always existed and will forever exist. As such, the cosmological argument does not conclusively prove the existence of a being respo...