Outline the cosmological argument for the existence of God
i) Outline the cosmological argument for the existence of God. (20) The cosmological argument, also known as the first cause argument, is an a posteriori argument. This means that the evidence used to prove the argument can be observed by anyone which makes the argument more accessible and user friendly. The argument is also inductive which means that it can have many possible conclusions; not necessarily God. The cosmological argument is a strong argument which tries to infer the existence of God through cause and effect; it's based upon the principle that everything must have been caused by something in order to exist, and that the First Cause which caused all the other causes is God. Cole says that "the cosmological argument attempts to infer the existence of God from the existence of the cosmos or from phenomena within it. The claim is that the universe cannot account for its own existence." The main weakness of the argument is causation because Hume argues that because no one has actually experienced the cause of the universe, it is beyond human understanding and so it's impossible and pointless to compare our own experiences of the causation of events to the causation of the universe. There are many weaknesses to the cosmological argument which appear to outweigh the strengths. These weaknesses challenge the whole argument such as the logic of the argument and modern
Cosmological argument
Consider the view that the cosmological argument provides clear proof of the existence of God. (50 Marks) The Cosmological argument seeks to answer the question 'Why does anything exist?' It claims that this question is only answerable if God exists. There are many cosmological arguments; I will focus upon the Kalam argument, a deductive version of the cosmological argument and Richard Swinburne's inductive version of the cosmological argument. The Kalam argument states that everything that begins to exist has a cause. I began to exist so it is reasonable to ask what caused me to exist, I could answer and say that my parents caused me to exist however it still remains reasonable to ask what caused them to exist. We can continue this chain of questions until we arrive at what caused the universe? The Kalam argument states that if the universe came in to existence in the same way that I did then it too must have a cause as something cannot arise from nothing. Whatever caused the universe must have caused the universe without being caused itself. The Kalam argument arrives at the conclusion that only God could be the answer as God does not have a cause but is able to cause other things for instance the universe. Does everything really have a cause? Hume argues that we cannot know if every event has a cause as it is not an analytic truth, this also applies to the principle of
Is it a simple matter to distinguish a scientific argument from a pseudo-scientific argument?
John 3/14/03 Block IV Is it a simple matter to distinguish a scientific argument from a pseudo-scientific argument? Mankind has always endeavored to understand the world and its surroundings, to know and understand how and why things happen. Through this, both science and pseudo-science was born. A pseudo-science is something that claims to be scientific, but really isn't. Some examples of pseudo-science include things like astrology, numerology, and other so-called "sciences". A science tries to explain how and why things happen by creating laws that dictate what nature does. The laws of a scientific argument are based upon the hypotheses of scientists. In order for a hypothesis to become a theory, it must be tested meticulously. The best way to prove it true is by proving it false. If the argument or hypothesis succeeds the test, then it is one step closer to being proven true. The more times it is proven true, the higher the probability of it being completely true. Inductively, after it has been proven true a number of times, it must be true. However, logically, it can never really be proven completely true, since it would take an infinite number of tests to do so. A pseudo-science argument is similar, in that it has laws. However, these laws are mostly restatements of known facts. For example, in astrology, they make claims about what you are like based on what day
Plato's allegory of the cave
Plato’s analogy of the cave The story of the cave has many meanings behind it; there is not just one moral to the story, but a variety of linked points are made to express Plato’s understanding of the progress of mind from its lowest stage to an enlightened knowledge of the good. In this story the escaped prisoner in the cave represents Socrates, a Greek philosopher. The allegory begins with a description of prisoners in a cave, who are only able to look straight ahead of themselves because they are chained. They have a fire behind them, a wall in front, and the cave has a long tunnel entrance so that there is no natural daylight in the cave, only the firelight. These prisoners in the cave are representing the Greeks; they have their beliefs and they do not want to turn their heads to listen to anyone else’s teachings that are different to theirs. In this allegory Plato illustrates the prisoners as souls and the cave as the human body thus suggesting the body is a kind of prison in which the soul is trapped. This concept suggests that the soul, like the prisoners, has been there since birth therefore showing that Plato believes the soul is immortal, this is backed up by the fact that despite the prisoner (Socrates) died, his ideas and teachings live on forever hence showing the soul is immortal. In the story the prisoner wants to escape the cave and go into the
Plato's Theory of Forms.
Plato's Theory of Forms. Plato, one of the greatest philosophers of all time, has had a profound effect on subsequent ages. He was born into an aristocratic Athenian family in about 428 BCE, and his are the earliest writings of philosophical findings that have been recorded. However Plato not only recorded his own findings, but those of his teacher, Socrates. Socrates, a man who was known by the Grecians to be a 'hornet', forever hovering around, standing up to things, questioning everything and generally being a busybody, was not seen like that in the eyes of Plato. Plato admired Socrates for his teachings, and of his Dialectic method, which was to question and answer everything to show up mortal ignorance, and get as close as possible to 'Real Knowledge'. However, Socrates never had chance to write down his experiences, he only taught by word of mouth, forever battling against the Sophists, in trying to prove that philosophy wasn't just a profession as they thought, but a way of life. Socrates career and life came to a bitter end in 399 BCE, when he was sentenced to death by poison with a charge of corrupting the young (namely young philosophers like Plato) and of introducing new Gods. Instead of leaving Athens forever or appealing for leniency, Socrates decided to give up his life in the name of philosophy and the search for truth. Even though the death of Socrates
To what extent is the omnipotence of God a logically coherent concept?
Bailey Bell To what extent is the omnipotence of God a logically coherent concept? (35) The concept of omnipotence and God is not easily understood; the term refers to the notion that God is all-powerful and supreme. For some this concept of God being omnipotent is logically coherent, but for others it is not. For instance, saying God is all-powerful suggests that God can do anything. But one scenario raised by Michael Dummett is can God change the past? Does it make sense to pray in the event that you receive news that a ship that your loved ones were on sank hours ago with few survivors? Could God change what happened or are your loved one already safe because God knew you’d pray. In this sense it is not a very coherent concept as we aren’t entirely clear of the extent of God’s omnipotence. Many that hold the view that God can do anything run into problems; if God can do everything, could he create a five sided triangle? If holding the view that God can do anything it would seem this is logical as God could change the definition of a triangle. But it seems illogical that God would have this sort of power to change the past, as it is contradictory. It could be argued that God’s omnipotence is not a logically coherent concept; humans have two arms and two legs to enable us to run but the other attributes of God contradict each other because if he is all powerful yes
"We are free to make ethical decisions" Discuss.
"We are free to make ethical decisions" The views of scholars and philosophers regarding free will are generally representative of libertarianism, hard determinism or compatibilism, also referred to as soft determinism. These three theories display different attitudes to the extent of free choice humans possess, and the moral responsibility that thus follows, or lack of there of. Libertarians reject the idea of predestination and believe in full moral responsibility for our chosen actions. For instance, Existentialists embrace the essence of Augustine's work. He had a traditional understanding of God as an omniscient, omnipotent and an omnibenevolent Creator, and interpreted the Genesis stories much more literally that one would tend to today. Augustine believed that God knowingly created humans as conscious beings capable of determining their own moral behaviour. Augustine valued such freedom above the moral evil it may potentially cause, and believed that the unethical consequences were a price worth paying for the ability to willfully be in harmony with God. If one chooses to act unethically, the evil thus produced is caused by the abuse of free will granted by God. Therefore, whatever the outcome, humans have the freedom to act in whichever way the feel appropriate. No human (or spiritual being) has a pre-determined good or bad nature, and hence may potentially make
