Cosmological argument states that there exists a First Cause or an Uncaused Cause in the universe, and by extension is often used as an argument for the existence of an “unconditioned” or “supreme” being, usually identified as God. On the other hand, the Design Argument proves the existence of God by focusing on the universe as a whole and portraying it as a machine. Machines have intelligent designers and like effects have like causes; therefore, the universe as a whole has an intelligent designer, which is God. (Encyclopædia Britannica 2011)
Those theories are powerful and cause people to believe that perhaps there really is a God. People feel compelled to explain our existence, and therefore do so by believing God created us first. Mankind must have a creator itself, just like every human being must have a mother in order to exist. Thus, the theory makes a very good argument and compels people to be convinced in the existence of a God.
The arguments are very convincing on the surface; many people would not need stronger conviction to believe in God. However, if we break these arguments into pieces, we start to recognize small flaws. As an example, the cosmological argument states that the universe is created by a being outside of the universe, God. However, since all existence requires an explanation, God’s existence itself must first be explained by a third-party source. As another example, in the Design Argument, William Paley compared a watch and the universe: Like a watch, the universe exhibits such a complex design that it could only have been the creation of an intelligent will. In short, all things must have a creator, designer. It is true that for a watch to exist, there must first be a designer. However, this designer does not design time. Time is an existence that is neither created by a watch designer nor God. Time is a neutral stimulus; its existence cannot be explained by either argument.
I find neither argument is convincing in providing the existence of a God. However, I can understand why other people find it convincing enough to believe in the existence of God - because they only look at the argument on the surface and refuse to question the existence of a Supreme Being.
I find neither argument is convincing in providing the existence of a God. However, I can understand why other people find it convincing enough to believe in the existence of God - because they only look at the argument on the surface and refuse to question the existence of a Supreme Being.
I like especially here the claim that, if you look closer at the argument, it is possible to pick it to pieces, this does reflect how philosophical argumentation works
ReplyDelete