Share
Explore BrainMass

"God is not an unreasonable option"

3. Several arguments have been proposed to show that the belief in God is not an unreasonable option. Outline the two major arguments-cosmological and teleological-identifying their premises and their conclusions. Are these arguments convincing? What objections can be raised against their validity?

Solution Preview

Please see response attached, which is also presented below. I hope this helps and take care.

3. Several arguments have been proposed to show that the belief in God is not an unreasonable option. Outline the two major arguments-cosmological and teleological-identifying their premises and their conclusions. Are these arguments convincing? What objections can be raised against their validity?

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT, a.k.a. FIRST CAUSE 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. http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/cosmological.html

Objections to the cosmological argument and its validity...

This argument is subject to a simple objection, introduced by asking, "Does God have a cause of his existence?" If, on the one hand, God is thought to have a cause of his existence, then positing the existence of God in order to explain the existence of the universe doesn't get us anywhere. Without God there is one entity the existence of which we cannot explain, namely the universe; with God there is one entity the existence of which we cannot explain, namely God. Positing the existence of God, then, raises as many problems as it solves, and so the cosmological argument leaves us in no better position than it found us, with one entity the existence of which we cannot explain. http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/cosmological.html

If, on the other hand, God is thought not to have a cause of his existence, i.e. if God is thought to be an uncaused being, then this too raises difficulties for the simple cosmological argument. For if God were an uncaused being then his existence would be a counterexample to premise (1), "Everything that exists has a cause of its existence." 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. if some things that exist do not have a cause, then the cosmological argument can be resisted on the ground that the universe itself might be such a thing. If God is claimed to exist uncaused, then, then the simple cosmological argument fails. http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/cosmological.html

See a more complex cosmological explanation of the existence of God at http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/cosmological.html

TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I), a.k.a. DESIGN ARGUMENT

(1) Check out the world/universe/giraffe. Isn't it designed and complex?
(2) Only God could have made them so designed and complex.
(3) Therefore, God exists. http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

In other words, although there are variations, the basic teleological argument goes something like this:
1. X is too complex to have occurred randomly or naturally. ...

Solution Summary

This solution discusses several arguments have been proposed to show that the belief in God is not an unreasonable option. It outlines the two major arguments-cosmological and teleological-identifying their premises and their conclusions, examines if these arguments are convincing and what objections can be raised against their validity.

$2.19