Table of Contents
Is Cosmological Argument valid?
The first mover or first cause is devoid of any other characteristic. So the cosmological argument is neither a valid argument in requiring the truth of its conclusion nor is it a satisfactory argument to prove the existence of any being that would have awareness of the existence of the universe or any event within it.
What are the weaknesses of the Cosmological Argument?
Disadvantages
- No proof of God’s existence.
- Lots of Inductive Leaps (Hume)
- No imperial evidence (Hume)
- Assumptions between cause and effect.
- The world may be infinite and doesn’t need to have a cause (Russell and Oscillating Universe Theory)
- Contradicting statements – Everything needs a cause, but God doesn’t need a cause.
What is the main idea of the Cosmological Argument?
The Cosmological Argument is an argument that attempts to conclude the existence of god, through reference to the existence of the universe. It’s main principle, first suggested by Plato, then developed by Thomas Aquinas, is that there must be an uncaused causer or an unmoved mover.
What is one strength of the cosmological argument?
The Cosmological provides an a posteriori explanation for the alternative. Strength: It’s logical. Logic dictates that objects do not bring themselves into existence and so they must have a cause.
Is Cosmological Argument inductive?
The Cosmological Argument is inductive, so like all inductive arguments it is based on probability. It depends which you think is the most probable explanation for the universe: 1 A necessarily existent mind.
Who Criticised the cosmological argument?
This thesis sets out to examine Kant’s criticism of the cosmological argument. Kant’s general philosophical views are expounded and his reasons for the rejection of metaphysics are explained.
Is the cosmological argument a valid argument?
So the cosmological argument is neither a valid argument in requiring the truth of its conclusion nor is it a satisfactory argument to prove the existence of any being that would have awareness of the existence of the universe or any event within it.
Is the cosmological argument a posteriori?
As an a posteriori argument, the cosmological argument begins with a fact known by experience, namely, that something contingent exists. We might sketch out a version of the argument as follows. A contingent being (a being such that if it exists, it could have not-existed or could cease to exist) exists.
Is there a cosmological argument in Asian philosophy?
Although the cosmological argument does not figure prominently in Asian philosophy, a very abbreviated version of it, proceeding from dependence, can be found in Udayana’s Nyāyakusumāñjali I,4.
What is the cause of the universe according to Aristotle?
There needs to be a cause for the universe. Nothing comes from nothing so since there is something there must have been some other something that is its cause. Aristotle rules out an infinite progression of causes, so that led to the conclusion that there must be a First Cause.