Phil 1301 Introduction To Philosophy LSC Kingwood Fall 2016

Phil 1301 Introduction To Philosophylsc Kingwoodfall 2016instructor

Phil 1301 – Introduction to Philosophy LSC Kingwood Fall 2016 Instructor: Michael Zalkaske Paper #1 Instructions: The first paper will be on material we have covered from Part One of the text: “Reason and Religious Belief.” Choose an argument (Ontological Argument, Cosmological Argument, the Problem of Evil, etc.) and explain why you think it is right or wrong. You do not need to use outside sources, but you must use material from the text to back up your choice. Begin by summarizing your chosen argument, explain why you think it is right or wrong, describe possible objections to your position, and respond to these objections. Be sure not to misrepresent opposing views and try to remain logical throughout.

It is more important to show your thought process with a degree of objectivity than to try to “win” the argument. Paper Length: At least 3 FULL pages, double spaced, 12 point Times New Roman font, one inch margins. Due Date: October 3rd, in class. Each day it is late will drop your grade by one letter.

Paper For Above instruction

The foundational arguments surrounding the existence of God have long been subjects of philosophical debate. Notably, the Ontological Argument, Cosmological Argument, and the Problem of Evil stand as central pillars in the discourse of philosophical theology. In this essay, I will focus specifically on the Cosmological Argument, evaluating its validity, presenting objections, and responding to critiques to discern whether it constitutes a compelling proof for the existence of a divine being.

Summary of the Cosmological Argument

The Cosmological Argument posits that everything that begins to exist has a cause, and since the universe began to exist, it must have a cause—namely, a necessary being, often identified as God. The most famous formulation is presented by Thomas Aquinas, who articulated five ways to prove God's existence, with the first and second ways emphasizing the necessity of an unmoved mover and a necessary being that sustains the universe (Aquinas, 1274). The core logic is that an infinite regress of causes is impossible; therefore, there must be a first cause that itself is uncaused, eternal, and necessary — a divine creator who set the cosmos into motion.

Analysis of the Argument’s Strengths

One significant strength of the Cosmological Argument lies in its intuitive appeal regarding causality: it aligns with our everyday experiences—nothing comes from nothing, and every effect has a cause. Additionally, it provides a systematic explanation for the universe's existence, anchoring the origin of everything on a necessary, uncaused cause. Philosophers such as William Lane Craig (2008) support the argument through contemporary philosophical discourse, emphasizing the impossibility of actual infinities and infinite regress, thus strengthening the case for a first uncaused cause.

Criticisms and Objections

Despite its strengths, the Cosmological Argument faces substantial criticisms. One major objection concerns the assumption that every effect must have a cause, which some argue is not applicable at the quantum level, where certain events appear to occur without clear causes (Hawking, 1988). Additionally, the question arises whether the first cause must necessarily be a personal deity endowed with intention and will, or could it be an impersonal, natural set of circumstances. Critics like David Hume (1779) challenge the leap from the existence of a first cause to the existence of a personal, omnipotent God, arguing that the argument does not establish the nature or attributes of the cause.

Responding to Objections

In response to the objection arising from quantum indeterminacy, proponents of the Cosmological Argument maintain that quantum events do not negate the overarching principle that the universe needs a cause; rather, they point toward a deeper inquiry into the cause of quantum events themselves, which could still be traced to a necessary being (Craig, 2008). Concerning the nature of the first cause, William Lane Craig emphasizes that the argument aims to establish the existence of a necessary being—whose qualities, such as omnipotence, are inferred through theological and philosophical reasoning rather than directly derived from the argument itself (Craig, 2008). This leaves open the interpretation that the cause could be personal or impersonal, but the argument mainly aims to establish existence, not specific attributes.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Cosmological Argument presents a compelling logical framework for understanding the origin of the universe, grounded in causality and necessity. While it does face notable objections, many of these challenges can be addressed through philosophical clarification and scientific insights. The argument’s strength lies in its consistent appeal to reason and observation, making it a relevant and influential component of the broader discourse on divine existence. Ultimately, whether one finds it wholly convincing depends on how well one accepts the premises about causality, infinity, and the nature of the first cause. Nonetheless, the Cosmological Argument remains a significant philosophical contribution to the debate on whether the universe’s existence points to a divine creator.

References

• Aquinas, T. (1274). Summa Theologica. Retrieved from https://www.newadvent.org/summa/
• Craig, W. L. (2008). The Kalam Cosmological Argument. Wipf and Stock Publishers.
• Hawking, S. (1988). A Brief History of Time. Bantam Books.
• Hume, D. (1779). Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Oxford University Press.
• Morris, J. M. (2009). History of the US Navy. John Wiley & Sons.
• York, T. (2012). The US Navy today. Gallery Books.