What is wrong with the first cause argument?
Because A exists, it must have had a creator. It can’t be its own creator, though, because the law of causality means the thing that caused it must have been from before it existed. The solution to this problem put forth in this argument is an eternal creator that is exempt to this law.
How can the cosmological argument be challenged?
Conclusions of Cosmological argument go far beyond the evidence – we are lacking any empirical evidence for God as the first cause. Refused to accept 2 key underlying assumptions of the Cosmological argument: 1. Assumption the universe is contingent or dependent on something outside the universe for its existence.
What are the weaknesses of the first cause argument?
Weaknesses of the argument The Big Bang was not necessarily caused by God – it could have happened by chance. The argument is presented for believers and makes sense to them, but it is not convincing for the atheist or the agnostic .
What is the Contingency Argument for God’s existence?
The argument is called “The Contingency Argument For God’s Existence”. Sometimes it’s referred to as “The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument”, the reason why it is called that is that the argument was first formulated by the mathematician Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz.
What is contingency of being?
Contingency is a mode of being where a things existence and essence are different from one another. Since the existence and essence of this thing are not identical, this means that the thing in question does not have to exist by its nature.
Can we know God’s existence through reason alone?
Hence the proof of a necessary being is a philosophical proof for the existence of God — a being whose very nature it is to exist by definition. In this way, the argument from contingency shows God’s existence can be known through reason alone.
What is Leibniz’s argument from contingency?
On that podcast, I attempted to trot out what would be Leibniz’s response, commonly known as the argument from contingency, which is a philosophical proof (read: “logical demonstration”) for the existence of God. I already got a few emails about this, asking to go a little more in depth—people, apparently, became curious.