The Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God

According to St. John 8:31-32 said, “If you remain in my word, you will truly be my disciples, and you will know the truth and the truth shall set you free”. This sentence is come from the bible, but I am not a christian, so I do not really understand what this means. I guess it was talking about if people believe in god, and trust his words, and in the end the will get the freedom. For many of christians, they believes in god, but many of the treatises of theologians and Christian philosophers can shed much light on the existence of God, the problem of evil and other objections raised by modern unbelievers. So, what I going to talk about is cosmological argument for the existence of god. Firstly, what is cosmological argument for the existence of god? Before I explain that, I am going to tell you what is cosmological argument. The cosmological Argument (Greek “cosmos”= orderly whole): a posterior, deductive. “god” is the “first (uncaused) cause “of the cosmos. it is deductive, so it is a candidate for soundness. Then the cosmological argument is the argument that the existence of the world or universe is strong evidence for the existence of a God who created it.

The existence of the universe, the argument claims, stands in need of explanation, and the only adequate explanation of its existence is that it was created by God. In simple words, cosmological argument for exsitence of god is this argument was argue that the cause of those things existence had be a “god-typed” thing, argument go all the way back to Plato and have been used by notable philosophers and thelogians ever since. Besides being philosophically evident, science finally caught up with theologians in the 20th centry when it was confirmed that universe had to have had a beginning, so today, the arguments even powerful for non-philosophers. According to our textbook which written by Hick, he said everything happened has a cause. I totally agree with that. Every effect must have a cause. This universe and everthing in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everthing to come into existence. Ultimately, there must be something “un-caused” in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That “un-caused” is God. For at least 3,000 years, thinkers have argued that the orderliness of the universe shows that it was made and sustained by a creator God—in other words, it was designed. Not only the Hick agree with the god existence, so does the St. Thomas Aquinas.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) was a Dominican priest, theologian, and philosopher. Called the Doctor Angelicus (the Angelic Doctor,) Aquinas is considered one the greatest Christian philosophers to have ever lived. In his Summa Theologiae Aquinas put forward five proofs (or five ways) for the existence of God: First Way ?Argument from Motion Second Way ?Causation of Existence Third Way ?Contingent and Necessary Objects Fourth Way ?The Argument from Degrees and Perfection Fifth Way ?The Argument from Intelligent Design. Aquinas concluded that common sense observation tells us that no object creates itself.

In other words, some previous object had to create it. Aquinas believed that ultimately there must have been an UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE (GOD) who began the chain of existence for all things. Follow the agrument this way: There exists things that are caused (created) by other things. Nothing can be the cause of itself (nothing can create itself.) There cannot be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist. Therefore, there must be an uncaused first cause called God. Above are the agrument provided by Hick and Aquinas, they believe in god existence. On the other hand, some people do not believed in “god-typed” things. To explain this objection, and how the two forms of cosmological argument evade it, I’ll use a simple, generic statement of the cosmological argument: (1) Everything that exists has a cause of its existence. (2) The universe exists.

Therefore:(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is God. Therefore:(5) God exists.
This argument is subject to a simple objection, introduced by asking, “Does God have a cause of his existence?”If, on the one hand, God is thought to have a cause of his existence, then positing the existence of God in order to explain the existence of the universe doesn’t get us anywhere. Without God there is one entity the existence of which we cannot explain, namely the universe; with God there is one entity the existence of which we cannot explain, namely God. Positing the existence of God, then, raises as many problems as it solves, and so the cosmological argument leaves us in no better position than it found us, with one entity the existence of which we cannot explain. If, on the other hand, God is thought not to have a cause of his existence, i.e. if God is thought to be an uncaused being, then this too raises difficulties for the simple cosmological argument.

For if God were an uncaused being then his existence would be a counterexample to premise (1), “Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.” If God exists but does not have a cause of his existence then premise (1) is false, in which case the simple cosmological argument is unsound. If premise (1) is false, i.e. if some things that exist do not have a cause, then the cosmological argument can be resisted on the ground that the universe itself might be such a thing. If God is claimed to exist uncaused, then, then the simple cosmological argument fails.Each of the two forms of cosmological argument discussed here is more sophisticated than the simple cosmological argument presented above. Each draws a distinction between the type of entity that the universe is and the type of entity that God is, and in doing so gives a reason for thinking that though the existence of the universe stands in a need of explanation, the existence of God does not. Each therefore evades the objection outlined above. Actully, Hicks also some objection about the God existence. Write an example which is hicks think objection. When I was little, I always wondered, who existed first, the eggs or the hens?

If the eggs were the first, where did they come from, should they come form the hen? Actually, everything happened for a reason, or every happened this have a cause, the non-cause thing is the God. If use the cosmological argument to explained the eggs and hens, I think the question could be solve easily. The God created the hens, and they can give brith next generation, so we can hve more chickends in the world. Personlly, I believe in God. I believe the existence of god. I also believe everything happened for a reason, and god is the cause for it. For example, if I fished in the river, lots of fishes die because of me. In the future, I will pay back, maybe I will get car accident or something bad happened to me. That was because I do bad things the creator which the god or buddha. So god punish me like that. On the earth right now, somethings we can explained, but somethings we can not explained, I think that because of god. I believe in god existence. God is the beginning of human. God is the first creator of the entire world. The only thing that would not have to be given existence is a thing that exists as its very nature. It is existence. This thing would always exist, have no cause, have no beginning, have no limit, be outside of time, be infinite . . . sound familiar? It should! It is God!

Work Cited

Anderson Owen “John Hick, Philosophy of Religion, and the Clarity of God’s Existence” print Hick, John. Philosophy of religion. New York. Nov 20, 1989. print Cheetham, David John Hick: A Critical Introduction and Reflection, Ashgate 2003 (0-7546-1599-5), pp. 189. print “the cosmological argument.” Philosophy of religion. Tim Holt online.web. july 27,2011. http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-cosmological-argument/ “Aquinas?Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God” philosophy of religion. Web july 27, 2011. http://www.scandalon.co.uk/philosophy/cosmological_aquinas.htm