The Standard Model accounts for three of the known four fundamental forces of nature—the strong, the weak, and the electromagnetic force—while general relativity accounts for the fourth—gravity.
What is the Cosmological argument for the existence of God? It begins with what is most obvious in reality: These types of arguments go all the way back to Plato and have been used by notable philosophers and theologians ever since.
Science finally caught up with theologians in the 20th century, when it was confirmed that the universe must have had a beginning.
So, today, the cosmological arguments are even powerful for non-philosophers. There are two basic forms of these arguments, and the easiest way to think of them might be the "vertical" and the "horizontal.
In the vertical form, it is argued that every created thing is being caused right now imagine a timeline with an arrow pointing up from the universe to God.
The horizontal version shows that creation had to have a cause in the beginning imagine that same timeline only with an arrow pointing backward to a beginning point in time.
The horizontal is a little easier to understand because it does not require much philosophizing. The basic argument is that all things that have beginnings had to have causes.
The universe had a beginning; therefore, the universe had a cause. That cause, being outside the whole universe, is God. Someone might say that some things are caused by other things, but this does not solve the problem.
This is because those other things had to have causes, too, and this cannot go on forever. All trees began to exist at some point for they have not always existed. Each tree had its beginning in a seed the "cause" of the tree. But every seed had its beginning "cause" in another tree. There cannot be an infinite series of tree-seed-tree-seed, because no series is infinite—it cannot go on forever.
All series are finite limited by definition. There is no such thing as an infinite number, because even the number series is limited although you can always add one more, you are always at a finite number. If there is an end, it is not infinite. All series have two endings, actually—at the end and at the beginning try to imagine a one-ended stick!
But if there were no first causethe chain of causes never would have started. Therefore, there is, at the beginning at least, a first cause—one that had no beginning. This first cause is God. The vertical form is a bit more difficult to understand, but it is more powerful because not only does it show that God had to cause the "chain of causes" in the beginning, He must still be causing things to exist right now.
Again, we begin by noting that things exist. Next, while we often tend to think of existence as a property that things sort of "own"—that once something is created, existence is just part of what it is—this is not the case. We can define the nature of a triangle as "the plane figure formed by connecting three points not in a straight line by straight line segments.
This definition of a triangle would hold true even if no triangles existed at all. The triangle is caused by something else—which also must have a cause. This cannot go on forever no infinite series. Therefore, something that does not need to be given existence must exist to give everything else existence.Many consider the argument for God from contingency to be one of the strongest.
The basic form is simple: If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist. The universe—the collection of beings in space and time—exists.
Therefore, there must exist what it takes for th. The Case Against The Design Argument Thomas Ash. Particularly relevant to this essay is my other response to the arguments put forward for God's existence, 'The Case Against The Cosmological Argument' Probably the single most popular way of proving God's existence is to use the 'Design Argument', and point to (what proponents think is) design, order and purpose in the universe as .
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 benjaminpohle.com these initial facts are that particular beings or events in the universe are causally.
In natural theology and philosophy, a cosmological argument is an argument in which the existence of a unique being, generally seen as some kind of god, is deduced or inferred from facts or alleged facts concerning causation, change, motion, contingency, or finitude in respect of the universe as a whole or processes within it.
It is traditionally known as an argument from universal causation. A Discussion of the Kalam Argument () Greg Scorzo Abstract.
This paper is a critique of the kalam cosmological argument as defended by William Lane Craig in his books, internet publications, and transcribed debates.
Arguments for the Existence of God General Information. Proofs FOR the Existence of God While theology may take God's existence as absolutely necessary on the basis of authority, faith, or revelation, many philosophers-and some theologians-have thought it possible to demonstrate by reason that there must be a God.