- Created by: emilytoole123
- Created on: 03-11-16 09:24
Explain Aquians' cosmoloigcal argument
cosmoloigcal seeks to prove the existence of God
it asks the three questions;
-how did the universe begin?
-why was the universe created?
-who created the universe?
3 ways-1st mover, 1st cause and the necesary being of which all contingent beings depend upon for their existence.
It argues in terms of observation, since it focuses on there being the wood analogy, when nothing can be infinite, since the wood, which is actual only becomes hot when an external force is added to it.
Assess how far Aquinas' cosmological argument shows that it is reasonable to believe in God?
what the cosmological argument actually is, a philosophical argument that seeks the prove the existence of God.
seeks to prove God as the reason for the universe.
-it is reasonable to believe in God:
gives an expleneation for the reason for why the universe is actually here.
rejection of infinite regress is also supported by scientific theories, such as the big bang theory.
lots of scientists agree with this to a large extent.
However-the counter argument
-fails to show the nature of God
-no actual proof, based on induction
-lots of science disagreements
Explain key criticisms of the cosmological argument
cosmoloigcal argument seeks to prove the existence of God , it is a philosophical argument , and aims to show that God is the reason for all od our existence, since he is the first mover, causer and he is also the necessary being, of which all contingent things and beings depend upon for their ownn existence.
Russel says that the universe is just a abrute fact, we are here and that is that.If the universe is a brute fact, then there is no need to explian the universe, there isn't a first mover, causer or a necessary being at all.
Saying the universe has always existed is not a sufficient reason to explain its existence
Steady state theory is a criticism to the cosmological argument as it rejects the idea of a beginning to the universe. This theory provides a scientific explanation that would undermine the cosmological argument.
Big Bang theory shows that the universe must have been caused by sp[ontaneous random movement, so this acts as a criticism to the cosmoloigcal argument because the cosmoloigcal argument focuses on there being a reason for the universe's existence-first cause, mover and necessary being too.
The weaknesses of the cosmoloigcal argument far outweigh its strengths
cosmoloigcal argument is a philosophical argument, which seeks the prove the existence of God, based on the fact that he is the first causer, mover and the necessary being too.
yes the weaknesses of the cosmological argument outweigh the strengths
-no proof-inductive leap, just because things (contingent beings) depend on another to exist, it doesn't mean that the universe needs to have a necessary being.
Or to have a cause or mover, just because things do!
to say that the universe has always existed, isn't…