Edward Lara
Phil 5 TWTh 7:30am
2/5/09
The Cosmological/Teleological Argument
After studying both arguments for the existence of God, I found that both are the same, they serve the same purpose, one is just more broad then the other. For the cosmological argument, in itself is an argument type more than a particular argument. It uses the pattern of logos that creates a conclusion from assumed facts about the world to the existence of God. Simply stated it says that the universe exists, therefore God exists. There are a variety of different ways of arguing from this premise to this conclusion. For the teleological argument it argues the same basis with a more personal view, it gives us a better perspective of a designer that gives us a purpose, basically it’s the idea that it takes a “purpose” to have a purpose. Thus, if things are intended for a purpose, there must have been something that caused it for a reason, God.
The atheistic belief today is that the universe came to existence all by chance, and that at one point, came to existence out of nothing. How is this comprehendible, how does something come out of nothing? How does this complex universe come to pass from a black space of nothingness? In the cosmological the argument is this. First, a contingent being exists, us. We have a cause of or explanation for our existence. Our cause of or explanation for our existence is something other than ourselves. What exactly explains our existence? It must either be other contingent beings or include necessary being, God. But other contingent beings alone can’t provide a sufficient explanation for the existence of others. So there must a necessary being involved, God. Therefore a necessary being must exist, God must exist. Now through this deductive reasoning doesn’t this seem more logical than ”The universe came from nothing and came to pass all by chance”?
The teleological has the same reasoning but through examples in our world. If things show marks of design there must be a designer. Things such as Mt. Rushmore and the Grand Canyon are very different, in such because one was created with a design and by an intelligent being, the other was through random/natural acts of nature. Scientifically it is nowhere to be found that design is spontaneous, random and by chance, it always implies a designer. So obviously the greater the design then greater must be the designer. Based on this conclusion the universe itself would require a designer way beyond itself, something supernatural. Because the universe shows marks of design then the universe must have been created. When looked at thoroughly every life for on earth is highly complex. And there are hundreds of conditions that are required for life on earth. From mass and density to lightening activity all must be perfect for life to be sustained here. So the random chance of all these things occurring seems unlikely does it not? The odds of this occurring randomly are very high and not probable. With so much design is it logical to believe that we just got “lucky”?
Even with evolution being introduced into play, the intelligent design theory shows problems in the theory of evolution because it shows that chance simply cannot play a role explain life on earth. And even single celled bacteria have such a complexity that if even one part were missing there would be no potential for survival. This shows that the parts could not have occurred by chance.
The problem people seem to have with the existence of God isn’t in the two arguments themselves but in the attributes given to God and the current status of the society. The problem is with Evil the premise goes as followed: 1. If God exists, then evil would not exist 2. Evil exists 3. Therefore God does not exist. The question is, how can an all loving and all powerful God let there be so much evil in the world. But I believe this can be easily explained. Alvin planting had two implied premises when it came to this problem. He said that if God is omnipotent (all powerful) then he can create any world he desires. And because he is omnibenevolent, he would much prefer a world without evil over a world with evil. But this is when the “free will” comes to play. Because God has given us free will it is logically impossible to have a world of only good because of the simple fact that we can choose bad or evil. It is like trying to think of a four sided triangle it is impossible. Also because the whole world does not believe in God we cannot have a good society, because the belief in God and his teaching would greatly improve society. With this in mind the thought of St. Augustine comes to mind. He stated that “Evil is the absence of Good”. It is logical to believe this, there is such thing as heat, lots of heat, mega-heat, a little heat and even infinite heat, but there is no such thing as “cold”, we can go as far as 458 degrees below zero which is the total absence of heat. But there is no such thing as “cold” because we would be able to go colder than that. Cold is just a word we describe as the absence of heat. Another example is the thought of darkness, there is no such thing as darkness. It is the absence of light. You can have normal light, low light, or bright light but when you have no light you have darkness, which is what we use to define the word. If it weren’t true then you could always make darkness darker, but you can’t. So now, does evil exist? No, not in itself, evil is could simply be stated as the absence of God, just like cold or darkness, it’s a word we have created to describe the absence of God.
Looking at all the evidence, all the theories and all the arguments, everything logically points to a creator or designer. It is much too unlikely for everything to have occurred by chance. There had to be a necessary being to create a contingent being. So there must be a God.
I hope i get a good grade! i just finished it right now! 5am! lol
