ভূমিকা

Shiavault - a Vault of Shia Islamic Books Philosophy of Religion (booklet) The Cosmological Argument The cosmological argument is the argument that the existence of the world or universe is strong evidence for the existence of a God who created it. The existence of the universe, the argument claims, stands in need of explanation, and the only adequate explanation of its existence is that it was created by God.

Like most of the purported proofs of the existence of God, the cosmological argument exists in several forms. Two forms of the argument will be discussed here: the temporal, kalam cosmological argument (i.e. the first cause argument), and the modal “argument from contingency”. The main distinguishing feature between these two arguments is the way in which they evade an initial objection to the argument.

In order to explain what this objection is, and how the two arguments evade it, a simple, generic statement of the cosmological argument will be necessary. This statement is as follows: The Simple Cosmological Argument (1) Everything that exists has a cause of its existence. (2) The universe exists. Therefore: (3) The universe has a cause of its existence. (4) If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is God. Therefore: (5) God exists.

This argument is subject to a simple objection, which arises in the form of the question “Does God have a cause of his existence?” If, on the one hand, God were thought to have a cause of his existence, then positing the existence of God in order to explain the existence of the universe wouldn’t get us anywhere.

Without God there would be one entity the existence of which we could not explain, namely the universe; with God there would be one entity the existence of which we could not explain, namely God. Positing the existence of God, then, would raise as many problems as it solved, and so the cosmological argument would leave us in no better position than it found us. If, on the other hand, God were thought not to have a cause of his existence, i.e.

if God were thought to be an uncaused being, then this too would raise difficulties for the simple cosmological argument. For if God were an uncaused being then his existence would be a counterexample to premise (1). If God exists but does not have a cause of his existence then premise (1) is false, in which case the simple cosmological argument is unsound. If premise (1) is false, i.e.