The argument is in three forms; motion, causation and being.
It must have had a beginning.A popular retort to the cosmological argument is to ask, "If Godmade the universe, then who made God?" If one insists that the worldhad a cause, must one not also insist that God had a cause?
The successof the Cosmological Argument depends on how one views PSR.
In any case, whether of value or not,these are MY personal "Arguments for the Existence of God"!Also, see:
The individual articles presented here were generally first publishedin the early 1980s.
Finally, there is doubt that Gale’s rejection of the traditionalcosmological argument on the grounds that the necessary being couldnot be necessarily good is well grounded. Gale argues that since thereare possible worlds with gratuitous or horrendous evils, and since Godas necessary would exist in these worlds, God cannot be necessarilygood. The problem here is that if indeed there is this incompatibilitybetween a perfectly good necessary being (God) and gratuitous evils oreven absolutely horrendous evils, then it would follow that worldswith God and such evils would not be possible worlds, for they wouldcontain a contradiction. In all possible worlds where a perfectly goodGod as a necessary being would exist, there would be a justificatorymorally sufficient reason for the evils that would exist, or at least,given the existence of gratuitous evils, for the possibility of theexistence of such evils (Reichenbach 1982: 38–39). Beyond this,however, the point stands that the weak PSR entails the strong PSR,and as we argued above, defenders of the cosmological argument do notneed such a strong version of the PSR to construct their argument.
Samuel Clarkes Cosmological Argument
It is, therefore, mainly a question of method and expediency what particular points one may select from the multitude available to illustrate and enforce the general a posteriori argument.
Cosmological Argument (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
This argument assumes the validity of the principle of causality or sufficient reason and, stated in its most comprehensive form, amounts to this: that it is impossible according to the laws of human thought to give any ultimate rational explanation of the phenomena of external experience and of internal consciousness -- in other words to synthesize the data which the actual universe as a whole supplies (and this is the recognized aim of philosophy) -- unless by admitting the existence of a self-sufficient and self-explanatory cause or ground of being and activity, to which all these phenomena may be ultimately referred.
The cosmological argument is less a particular ..
The various arguments mentioned -- and the same is true of others that might be added -- are not in reality distinct and independent arguments, but only so many partial statements of one and the same general argument, which is perhaps best described as the cosmological.
The Invalidity of the Cosmological Argument Essay ..
Jerome Gellman has argued that the Gale/Pruss conclusion to a beingthat is not necessarily omnipotent also fails; this being isessentially omnipotent and, if omnipotence entails omniscience, isessentially omniscient. This too Gale and Pruss concede, which meansthat the necessary being they conclude to is not significantlydifferent from that arrived at by the traditional cosmologicalargument that appeals to the moderate version of the PSR.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument Essay - 474 Words
To these many Theists add other arguments: the common consent of mankind (usually described by Catholic writers as the moral argument), from the internal witness of conscience to the supremacy of the moral law, and, therefore, to the existence of a supreme Lawgiver (this may be called the ethical argument, or from the existence and perception of beauty in the universe (the aesthetical argument).