At the same time, it should be recognized that showing that indeterminacy is a real feature of the world at the quantum level would have significant negative implications for the more general Causal Principle that underlies the deductive cosmological argument.
Among them is a particular kind of cosmological argument commonly called the argument from contingency. Richard Gale contends, in Kantian fashion, that since the conclusion of all versions of the cosmological argument invokes an impossibility, no cosmological arguments can provide examples of sound reasoning The no devil corollary is similar, but argues that a worse being would be one that does not exist in reality, so does not exist.
Therefore, if a being a greater than which cannot be conceived, can even be conceived, it must exist. Specifically, we can either a explain the universe or the first cause of the chain of observed effects in terms of some naturalistic, eternally existing contingent being or beings, or b we can reject the need for a single cause or explanation by positing an infinite regression of naturalistic, contingent beings, where each being is caused or explained by one or more previous ones.
So even if God is properly conceptualized as a necessary being, he is a poor candidate for the necessary being needed to explain contingency because "electing" him to that "office" would have the absurd consequence that gratuitous evil is impossible. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
Quantum accounts allow for additional speculation regarding origins and structures of universes. The Universe Just Is Interpreting the contingent being in premise 1 as the universe, Bertrand Russell denies that the universe needs an explanation premise 2 ; it just is.
No argument is made for metaphysical necessity or for logical necessity, and so one seems justified in asking how it is that this necessary being is its own sufficient reason if all the argument could successfully show is that it is necessary to our thinking.
After all, we expect things to have an explanation. For both options, one reason is eternal existence: If this is so, there would exist nothing that could bring anything into existence.
Yet dissenting voices can be heard. A final objection, similar to the previous one, can also be raised against the notion of an atemporal cause, or a cause existing outside time. Why, then, does God exist?
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 "contingent beings" cited are logically contingent in that they are capable of either existing or not existing.
For no one who denies or doubts the existence of a being a greater than which is inconceivable, denies or doubts that if it did exist its nonexistence, either in reality or in the understanding, would be impossible.
Another possibility open to the theist is the Cartesian idea that existence is a perfection. If from another, then we have an unsatisfactory infinite regress of explanations.
The name comes from a Stoic term ekpyrosis meaning conflagration or in Stoic usage "conversion into fire". Therefore, the greatest possible being must have maximal excellence in every possible world. That cause, being outside the whole universe, is God. The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
For this reason it might properly be called a presupposition of reason itself. We can easily be misled by the language of there being nothing at all, leading to the notion that nothing has being or existence.
In the next three paragraphs I will provide reasons not to accept the PSR. He argues that it is necessary that if God exists, then it is possible that no dependent beings exist. The universe began to exist. Each member or part will be explained either in terms of itself or in terms of something else that is contingent.
The latter is other than Him, and is regarded as His acts and effects, and for other than Him there is no subsistence, unless through Him.
Some doubt whether we can ask this question because there being nothing is not an option.Cosmological Argument: The Existence of a Necessarily Existing Being PAGES 3. WORDS 1, View Full Essay. More essays like this: Not sure what I'd do without @Kibin - Alfredo Alvarez, student @ Miami University.
Exactly what I needed. - Jenna Kraig, student @ UCLA. Wow. Most helpful essay resource ever!
The Cosmological Argument for God. February 9, Hence not all things are mere accidents, but there must be one necessarily existing being. Now every necessary thing either has a cause of its necessary existence, or has not.
In the case of necessary things that have a cause for their necessary existence, the chain of causes cannot go. This popular argument for the existence of God is most commonly known as the cosmological argument.
ultimedescente.com the first cause can be thought to be uncaused and a necessary being existing forever, then why not consider that the universe itself has always existed and shall always exist and go through a never ending cycle of.
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.
Questions of Existence and the Modal Cosmological Argument () Suppose that a necessarily existing life partner has a stronger claim to existence than a contingently existing one; if the explanatory being exists necessarily, and the existence of the other necessarily follows from this.
On the Cosmological Argument: McCloskey claims that the “mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in such a being [i.e., a necessarily existing being].”.Download