The Cosmological Argument Analysis

Words: 708
Pages: 3

The cosmological argument endeavors to prove God’s existence by observing the universe around us. These kind of arguments originated with Plato and have been used by distinguished philosophers and theologians ever since. Scientist eventually caught up with them in the 20th century, when it was established that the universe must have had a beginning. So, the cosmological argument is even more influential among Christians and non-philosophers today.

It starts with what is most certain in reality: things exist. It is then argued that the cause of these things had to be a creator thing. The universe does not exist on its own. There are two essential versions of this argument, and the simplest ways to consider them are the "vertical" and the
…show more content…
An object that would not have to be given existence is an object that exists in its own nature. This object would always be, have no cause, be outside of time, and be infinite. That object is God! "A verse in scripture that describes this argument is Psalm 19:1: The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.”

The Teleological Argument is an established apologetic argument for the existence of God. Possibly the most well-known modification of this argument is William Paley’s “watch” argument. Essentially, this argument states that after observing a watch, with all its complicated parts working together in a detailed manner to keep time, one must assume that this kind of machinery has a maker. It is far too complex to have merely come into existence by some other method such as evolution. The framework of the argument is the following: 1. Human relics are outcomes of intelligent design, having a reason for existing.
2. The universe is similar to these human relics.
3. Therefore: It is likely that the universe is an outcome of intelligent design, having a reason for
…show more content…
Unless all the parts of a scheme all developed at the same time, the scheme would be ineffective, and therefore would in fact be a loss to the life form. While irreducible complexity does not openly demonstrate an intelligent Designer, and does not decisively invalidate evolution, it absolutely leads to something beyond random chance in the origin and growth of biological life: a