What are the weaknesses of the cosmological argument?

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 are the two parts of the cosmological argument?

cosmological argument, Form of argument used in natural theology to prove the existence of God. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa theologiae, presented two versions of the cosmological argument: the first-cause argument and the argument from contingency.

How is the cosmological argument a posteriori?

This is an argument or proof that is based on Reason. It is an a posteriori argument and by that is meant that it proceeds after considering the existence of the physical universe. This argument or proof proceeds from a consideration of the existence and order of the universe.

What did Hume say about the cosmological argument?

DAVID HUME Hume maintains that the Cosmological argument begins with familiar concepts of the universe and concludes with not-so-familiar concepts beyond human experience. For Hume, God’s existence cannot be proven analytically (by definition), since the definition of God’s nature is not knowable.

What are three strengths of the cosmological argument?

Terms in this set (9)

• Strength: It’s an ‘a posteriori’ argument.
• Strength: God is a simple explanation.
• Strength: Infinite regress is unlikely.
• Strength: It’s logical.
• Weakness: Inconsistent notion of necessary being.
• (Comeback) God is not bound by universal laws.
• Weakness:
• Weakness:

Do Muslims believe in the cosmological argument?

One of the earliest formulations of the kalam cosmological argument in the Islamic philosophical tradition comes from Al-Ghazali, who writes: “Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning.”

How is the Cosmological Argument a posteriori?

What did Hume say about the Cosmological Argument?

Which is the better version of the cosmological argument?

English theologian and philosopher Samuel Clarke set forth a second variation of the Cosmological Argument, which is considered to be a superior version. It is called the “Argument from Contingency”. Clarke’s “Argument from Contingency”:

How is the Leibniz Contingency Argument summarised?

Leibniz’s contingency argument was summarised by William Lane Craig, as follows: Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. The universe exists. The universe has an explanation of its existence.

What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being?

Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being. Therefore, a necessary being (a being such that if it exists, it cannot not-exist) exists. The universe is contingent. Therefore, the necessary being is something other than the universe.

What did Aquinas mean by argument from contingency?

Aquinas’s argument from contingency allows for the possibility of a Universe that has no beginning in time. It is a form of argument from universal causation. Aquinas observed that, in nature, there were things with contingent existences.