Cosmological Argument

Cosmological Argument

The cosmological argument as Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716) presented it seems (at first glance) to be the simplest formulation of the argument. If nothing existed, then it would require no explanation. Since God exists, He chose to create our universe, and we have an account for why something exists instead of nothing.

The PER states that all things that exist require some cause for their existence. Leibniz's argument hinges entirely on the PER. Furthermore, if everything does have a cause, what do we say about God? If God does not require an explanatory cause, then we have at least one exception to the PER. So, Leibniz's dependence on the PER cripples his argument.

Defenders of the Leibniz Ian form of the cosmological argument can offer some response to these criticisms. First, it is possible to qualify the PER or God in such a way that exempts God from the PER. Maybe the PER only applies to things in the universe or contingent entities, so the PER would not apply to God and only to the universe. Even though the PER cannot be applied to every single possible being, it may be the case that it is still fair to say that the existence of the universe requires an explanation, and God is an appropriate explanation for the universe.

Cosmological Argument #2 - Theistic Cosmological ArgumentThe essential feature of the Theistic cosmological argument is the relation between contingent and necessary entities.A contingent being may or may not exist. The Theistic cosmological argument uses contingency and necessity to show the existence of God. This argument claims that since the universe is composed by contingent entities and an infinite number of contingent entities would still require some necessary being as the ground for its existence, then a necessary being (God, who else?) must exist. Cosmological Argument #3 - Kalama ArgumentThe structure of the argument goes like this:1. Either the universe exists or the universe does not.2. Either the universe had a beginning or it did not.4. Either the cause is personal or the cause is not personal.

The first disjunctive obviously rules in favor of the universe existing. If the universe did not exist, you would not be here reading this argument. Therefore, I think it is safe to conclude that the universe exists. (Betty, 2000)The philosophical arguments revolve around the impossibility of an actual infinite amount of time to exist. If an actually infinite amount of time cannot intelligibly exist, then the universe must have a finite beginning. One philosophical argument against the universe having an infinite regress of time for a beginning claims that if this is the case, then no amount of time could pass which would bring us to the present. Big bang cosmology is widely accepted in science as the orthodox view of the origin of the universe. Do things begin to exist without reason or cause? Is it possible to suggest the universe arbitrarily began to exist without cause or reason? For to claim that the big bang ...