Classical Arguments For The Existence Of God In Essay Form.

Describe the Philosophy and Contemporary Ideas For Cosmological Argument.

Premise and validity of genuine proof

According to a number of philosophers, a genuine proof refers to a premise or statement that every rational and sane person would find to be convincing after going through the same. The classical arguments regarding the existence of God, however, fail to attain the status of a proof since these arguments are not rationally convincing to all the people who attempt an inspection of the arguments. According to Mark Foreman, the arguments aim to provide for the best possible explanation to the activities that do take place within the scope of the universe. Foreman further clarifies that the existence of the Supreme Being might not be proved by one single argument. There are a number of mutually supportive arguments or concurrences that may attempt to provide for a strong case that asserts the existence of the Almighty (Casanovas, 2013).

According to the non-temporal contingency version of the cosmological argument, there exists in the universe some beings that have no particular reason behind their existence. According to discussion by McCloskey, the cosmological argument refers to an argument that is existent since the advent of the world. According to the eminent writers like Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre, the universe is described as being absurd. The writers have opined that the universe doesnot display any reasons for its existence although there should have existed a reason for the same (Evans & Manis, 2010 pp 75). The cosmological argument invokes and articulates the theistic approach towards the relationship that exists between the contingent beings and the Almighty God. McCloskey opines that the no conclusion can be achieved on the basis of any occurrence that takes place within the universe.  According to McCloskey, the existence of the Supreme Being  or any other force or power should have been dependent on a different source provided it formed a part of the cuasation frame. According to the views proposed by various philosophers, that the primary cause of the causation cannot be dependent on the reason which is beyond the scope of the causation. The existence of the first cause is deemed necessary for the established existence of the premise.

According to McCloskey, the cosmological argument does in no way entitle the proposal of an all-perfect, all-powerful and an uncaused cause (McCloskey, 1968 pp. 51). Athethism does not place belief in the existence of an originator or a higher being, though itr does not directly refer to the Almighty God. The cosmological argument seemingly puts forth the existence of a necessary being to be the reason  behind the existence of the universe. The argument is inclusive of some of the main elemnets of the theistic view of the conception of the exisence of the Supreme Being, however it excludes some of the important elements related to the theistic conception of the Almighty. The acceptance of the argument leads to the inquisitiveness of the human mind regarding the existence of the Almighty God. The argument is rendered invalid when no such desire os expressed. The non-inquisitiveness of the human mind may lead to he conclusion that there may be a multitude of causes that may lead to the conclusion of the cosmological argument.The universe reveals the presence of the natural law and signs of order that are seemingly the result of a highly intelligent mind of a designer (Evans & Manis, 2010 pp. 77).

Non-temporal contingency version of cosmological argument

A version of the teleological argument puts forth the issue that there are instances of design that are evident in the nature that surrounds mankind. The concerned version of the argument proceeds further with the theory stating that the presence of a designer is necessary in order to account for the existence of the design that is observed in nature the argument thus concludes that the nature around is probably the result of a certain designer. McCloskey rejects the teleological argument citing the reason that the complete understanding of the creation is not within the grip of mankind. A response to McCloskey’s argument may suggest that the human beings do not possess the gift of omniscience that is necessary to understand the difficult as well as complex issues that are put forward by the universe. The definition of indisputability refers to the state of absolute certainty on a given subject. Human beings generally rely on their reasoning and the sensual perceptions which may be misleading as well as flawed at certain points of time. Thus, given the conditions of attaining indisputability and the limitations of the human beings,  it may be concluded that the condition of indisputability can not be achieved by any human being. Thus, McCloskey’s standard of indisputability may be considered to be unreasonable and unachievable.

According to Evans and Manis, there are examples that state the existence of certain body parts in animals that aid in the processes of reproduction and the maintenance of the overall goal of existence (Evans & Manis, 2010 pp 78). The best example of one such animal may be a bird. The flight of a bird is a resultant activity that is based on the collaborative functioning of a number of different physiological systems. The slight differences in the DNA of the bird may alter the distribution or the shape of the feathers of the bird which may render the flight of the bird impossible. The simple creature like a bird possesses no intelligence regarding the flight and the preening of the feathers of its own yet it seems to perform the actions in a very regularised pattern. This helps the bird to accomplish the tasks of reproduction and the survival of its own. According to Thomas Aquinas, it is not possible for any unintelligent being to manage itself (Evans & Manis, 2010 pp. 77-78). Thus, it may be opined that the creature must have been the result of a designer brain that has rendered it capable of continuing with the tasks that are needed to accomplish the tasks of survival and reproduction.

Theistic view and cosmological argument

According to McCloskey, a theist is unable to reconcile with the theory of evolution with the view of the intelligent designer that is instilled within the mind of the theist. The theory of evolution as proposed by Charles Darwin explains the order that is observed in the universe with the help of the natural selections and other various random variations instead of the presence of an intelligent design (Evans & Manis, 2010, pp. 82-83). A theist would concede that truth about the evolutionary process and that the mechanicistic terms are insufficient in order to provide for an explanation of the same. Thus, the theists may agree to the presence of an intelligent designer mind that might have guided the process of evolution. The theist may also put forth a claim that an intelligent designer mind might have designed the process of evolution in order to actualize the purposes behind the creation of the universe by the Supreme Being.

According to McCloskey, the perfection of the divine purpose or design is nullified by the co-existence of evil in the universe. This is cited by McCloskey as a reason for the rejection of the teleological argument. The teleological argument does in no way conclude with the acceptance of the existence of a intelligent designer who may be referred to as perfect. The claim might also be agreed upon by a theist. The teleological argument concludes the mere probability of the existence of an intelligent designer mind. The presence of the omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent Supreme Being cannot be proved by the classical arguments in a direct way. The arguments help the thinkers to form some minimalistic concepts regarding the Supreme Being though it excludes some of the key aspects like the omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent nature of the Supreme Being. The natural theology, therefore, doesnot seem to be able to provide with the detailed knowledge of the Supreme Being that may be compared to the likes of the information provided by the religious experiences.

McCloskey puts forward a claim regarding the existence of the Almighty God which may be nullified by the co-existence of the Supreme Being and the evil in the world. According to McCloskey, the co-existence of  the evil occurences and the Supreme Being who is considered to be the owner of an intelligent design mind are logically contradictory towards each other. A theist might put forward claims that the co-existence of the evil occurences and the Supreme Being donot contradict each other.  The existence of the evil occurences facilitate the existence of certain virtues that may be known as the second-order goods (Evans & Manis, 2010, pp 162). The presence of evil ensures the presence of certain virtues that might not have existed otherwise. The unavoidable suffering as mentioned by McCloskey has aided the existence of the second-order good  of symapthy. Thus, it might be concluded that the presence of evil was allowed by the Supreme Being in order to promote the existence of the second-order goods. All human beings do not follow the second-order goods due to the presence of the free will. The existence of the free will is representative of another valid cause for the presence of the evil occurences. The Supreme being has allowed the humans with the choice of following the Almighty instead of forcing their obedience towards the Supreme Being.

The Almighty might have created the human beings as per the proposition by McCloskey which states that they would possess the free will that may help them in the choice of the morally correct option in all the situations that they face. This would have negated the concept of the free will thereby leading human beings to be biased towards the virtuous deeds. In case of the proposed condition, the earthly creatures would not follow the path that led to the Supreme Being out of their own free will but would do so since that would have been the only available option.

McCloskey finds atheism more comforting as compared to the insitution of belief in a Supreme Being who is assertive of the existence of suffering and pain in the world (McCloskey, 1968). According to Craig (2008), there could result major consequences from a world that seems to work without the presence of the Almighty Supreme Being. Craig further proceeds to state that the humanity might be condemned to death or doomed without the presence of any hope for the condition of immortality. Craig further opines that without the presence of God, the existence of a being might be deemed to be termed as an accident. The existence of morality is dependent on the existence of God. The existence of God instills a restriction in the minds of the human beings that restricts them from committing heinous crimes and mistakes.

References

Casanovas, P. (2013). Agreement and relational justice: A perspective from philosophy and sociology of law. In Agreement technologies (pp. 17-41). Springer Netherlands.

Craig, W. (2008). Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (3rd ed., pp. 71-90). Wheaton: IL: Crossway Books.

Evans, C. S., & Manis, R. Z. (2010). Philosophy of religion: thinking about faith. InterVarsity Press.

McCloskey, H. (1968). On Being an Atheist. Question 1, 50-54.