The Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God Essay Sample free essay sample

Harmonizing to St. John 8:31-32 said. â€Å"If you remain in my word. you will genuinely be my adherents. and you will cognize the truth and the truth shall put you free† . This sentence is come from the bible. but I am non a Christian. so I do non truly understand what this means. I guess it was speaking about if people believe in God. and swear his words. and in the terminal the will acquire the freedom. For many of Christians. they believes in God. but many of the treatises of theologists and Christian philosophers can cast much visible radiation on the being of God. the job of immorality and other expostulations raised by modern disbelievers. So. what I traveling to speak about is cosmogonic statement for the being of God. First. what is cosmogonic statement for the being of God? Before I explain that. I am traveling to state you what is cosmogonic statement. We will write a custom essay sample on The Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God Essay Sample or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page The cosmogonic Argument ( Grecian â€Å"cosmos†= orderly whole ) : a buttocks. deductive. â€Å"god† is the â€Å"first ( causeless ) cause â€Å"of the universe. it is deductive. so it is a campaigner for soundness. Then the cosmogonic statement is the statement that the being of the universe or existence is strong grounds for the being of a God who created it. The being of the existence. the statement claims. bases in demand of account. and the lone equal account of its being is that it was created by God. In simple words. cosmogonic statement for exsitence of God is this statement was argue that the cause of those things being had be a â€Å"god-typed† thing. statement go all the manner back to Plato and have been used by noteworthy philosophers and thelogians of all time since. Besides being philosophically apparent. scientific discipline eventually caught up with theologists in the twentieth centry when it was confirmed that existence had to hold had a beginning. so today. the statements even powerful for non-philosophers. Harmonizing to our text edition which written by Hick. he said everything happened has a cause. I wholly agree with that. Every consequence must hold a cause. This universe and everthing in it is an consequence. There must be something that caused everthing to come into being. Ultimately. there must be somethin g â€Å"un-caused† in order to do everything else to come into being. That â€Å"un-caused† is God. For at least 3. 000 old ages. minds have argued that the methodicalness of the existence shows that it was made and sustained by a Godhead God—in other words. it was designed. Not merely the Hick agree with the God being. 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 hold of all time lived. In his Summa Theologiae Aquinas put frontward five cogent evidences ( or five ways ) for the being 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 old object had to make it. Aquinas believed that finally there must hold been an UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE ( GOD ) who began the concatenation of being for all things. Follow the agrument this manner: There exists things that are caused ( created ) by other things. Nothing can be the cause of itself ( nil can make itself. ) There can non be an eternal twine of objects doing other objects to be. Therefore. there must be an causeless first cause called God. Above are the agrument provided by Hick and Aquinas. they believe in God being. On the other manus. some people do non believed in â€Å"god-typed† things. To explicate this expostulation. and how the two signifiers of cosmogonic statement evade it. I’ll use a simple. generic statement of the cosmogonic statement: ( 1 ) Everything that exists has a cause of its being. ( 2 ) The universe exists. Therefore: ( 3 ) The existence has a cause of its being.( 4 ) If the existence has a cause of its being. so that cause is God. Therefore: ( 5 ) God exists.This statement is capable to a simple expostulation. introduced by inquiring. â€Å"Does God have a cause of his being? †If. on the one manus. God is thought to hold a cause of his being. so situating the being of God in order to explicate the being of the existence doesn’t get us anyplace. Without God there is one entity the being of which we can non explicate. viz. the existence ; with God there is one entity the being of which we can non explicate. viz. God. Situating the being of God. so. rises as many jobs as it solves. and so the cosmogonic statement leaves us in no better place than it found us. with one entity the being of which we can non explicate. If. on the other manus. God is thought non to hold a cause of his being. i. e. if God is thought to be an causeless being. so this excessively raises troubles for the simple cosmogonic statement. For if God were an causeless being so his being would be a counterexample to premise ( 1 ) . â€Å"Everything that exists has a cause of its being. † If God exists but does non hold a cause of his being so premiss ( 1 ) is false. in which instance the simple cosmogonic statement is unsound. If premiss ( 1 ) is false. i. e. if some things that exist do non hold a cause. so the cosmogonic statement can be resisted on the land that the universe itself might be such a thing. If God is claimed to be causeless. so. so the simple cosmogonic statement fails. Each of the two signifiers of cosmogonic statement discussed here is more sophisticated than the simple cosmogonic statement presented above. Each draws a differentiation between the type of entity that the existence is and the type of entity that God is. and in making so gives a ground for thought that though the being of the universe bases in a demand of account. the being of God does non. Each therefore evades the expostulation outlined above. Actully. Hicks besides some expostulation about the God being. Write an illustration which is yokels think expostulation. When I was small. I ever wondered. who existed foremost. the eggs or the biddies? If the eggs were the first. where did they come from. should they come form the biddy? Actually. everything happened for a ground. or every happened this have a cause. the non-cause thing is the God. If use the cosmogonic statement to explicate the eggs and biddies. I think the inquiry could be solve easy. The God created the biddies. and they can give Berith following coevals. so we can hve more chickends in the universe. Personlly. I believe in God. I believe the being of God. I besides believe everything happened for a ground. and God is the cause for it. For illustration. if I fished in the river. tonss of fishes die because of me. In the hereafter. I will pay back. maybe I will acquire auto accident or something bad happened to me. That was because I do bad things the Godhead which the God or Buddha. So god penalize me like that. On the Earth right now. somethings we can explained. but somethings we can non explicate. I think that because of God. I believe in God being. God is t he beginning of human. God is the first Godhead of the full universe. The lone thing that would non hold to be given being is a thing that exists as its really nature. It is existence. This thing would ever be. hold no cause. have no beginning. have no bound. be outside of clip. be infinite. . . sound familiar? It should! It is God! Work Cited Anderson Owen â€Å"John Hick. Doctrine of Religion. and the Clarity of God’s Existence† print Hick. John. Philosophy of faith. New York. Nov 20. 1989. print Cheetham. David John Hick: A Critical Introduction and Re?ection. Ashgate 2003 ( 0-7546-1599-5 ) . pp. 189. print â€Å"the cosmogonic statement. † Doctrine of faith. Tim Holt online. web. July 27. 2011. hypertext transfer protocol: //www. philosophyofreligion. info/theistic-proofs/the-cosmological-argument/ â€Å"Aquinas? Cosmologic Argument for the Existence of God† doctrine of faith. Web july 27. 2011. hypertext transfer protocol: //www. scandalon. co. uk/philosophy/cosmological_aquinas. htm