There are many traditional "proofs" for theexistence of God, and we will look at three of them: The argumentfrom design, the ontological argument and the cosmologicalargument.
The cosmological argument is however not a valid argument in explaining the existence of god because the conclusions do not logically follow the premises.
Each of these arguments, if successful, supports a certain conception of God: the ontological argument, for instance, is an argument for the existence of a perfect being; the first cause argument is an argument for the existence of an eternal Creator; the argument from design is an argument for the existence of Creator with a special interest in humanity; the moral argument is an argument for a moral authority.
Arguments for the existence of God come in many different forms; some draw on history, some on science, some on personal experience, and some on philosophy. The primary focus of this site is the philosophical arguments—the , the , the , and the .
The course was based around Dr. Reichenbach’s Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on the Cosmological Argument and a new article by Dr. Fodeh on cosmological arguments in the kalam tradition. The topics covered included philosophical debates around the Principle of Sufficient Reason, the relationship between the ontological and cosmological arguments in analytic philosophy, the Gale-Pruss cosmological argument, Swinburne’s inductive cosmological argument, the scriptural backdrop of traditional kalam arguments, an overview of kalam arguments for God’s existence and attributes, the debate between Ghazali and Ibn Rushd over the beginning of the universe, modality and necessity in the kalam tradition, and arguments for the impossibility of an infinite series of causes.
The Arguments for the Existence of God section sets out to explain each of the common philosophical arguments for theism, and so to explore the case for the existence of God.
Recent decades have seen a rise in interest in natural theology and the philosophy of religion. Each of the classic theistic proofs has been revived and refined, presented in revised form and defended afresh. Whether any of these arguments for the existence of God is successful, of course, remains controversial.
McCloskey wrote an article titled “On Being an Atheist.” In that article, McCloskey attempts to refute some traditional arguments for the existence of God.
He argues that since there is no evidence to prove these arguments to be true, therefore they aren’t and for that reason the idea of the mere existence of God should be removed from our thinking....
These arguments differ from other arguments for the existence of God since they are not based on empirical data such as the existence or nature of the universe, but are rather grounded in pure logic.
Despite cultural differences, broadly speaking, humans worldwide have a vague idea of what is right and what is wrong; a moral argument for the existence of God would say that this mutual understanding is proof of God's existence.
One of the oldest and most well known advocates of the Cosmological Argument was Thomas Aquinas who outlines his argument for the existence of God in his article entitled The Five Ways.
The modal cosmological argument, the , suggests that because the universe might not have existed (i.e. is contingent), we need some explanation of why it does. Whereever there are two possibilities, it suggests, something must determine which of those possibilities is realised. As the universe is contingent, then, there must be some reason for its existence; it must have a cause. In fact, the only kind of being whose existence requires no explanation is a necessary being, a being that could not have failed to exist. The ultimate cause of everything must therefore be a necessary being, such as God.
This paper will focus on the Cosmological Argument, and show that its underlying principle, the Principle of Sufficient Reason, fails to establish it as a sound argument for the existence of God....
I argue that (1) there are significant differences between Peirce's neglected argument and the traditional arguments for God's existence; (2) Peirce's analysis of the neglected argument into three arguments is misleading; (3) there are two distinct levels of argument that Peirce does not recognize; and (4) it is doubtful whether the argument meets all...