The Cosmological Argument and the Mystical Argument

Discussion topics including the existence of God were always the vertices of infinite discourse on philosophical concepts. But there are two arguments that claim to be a "better" way to prove the existence of God, cosmological arguments and mysterious arguments. Both arguments attempt to enforce strict manipulation of exact reasoning, but neither argument is a good way to account for the existence of God. The collapse of these two arguments depends on the promise of error and the lack of sufficient evidence, thus detracting from the effectiveness in the field of philosophy and beliefs.

The argument of Kalam cosmology is a modern expression of the cosmological proof of the existence of God. It is named by William Lane Craig (William Lane Craig) of Kalam (Islamic medieval Schola) by his "Cerre Ermu's cosmology" (TheKalāmCosmologicalArgument, 1979). This argument is a transformation of the facilitator without being moved Aristotle 's mind. That is because Craig named Medieval Islamic Schola opposed the possibility of actual infinite existence, so the idea dates back to the philosophy of the 11th century Home Al Gazzari

Like most arguments about the existence of God exist in many forms such as cosmological arguments. Discussion 2 here: Time, Kalam cosmological arguments (that is, the first cause argument), as well as emergency modal arguments. The main difference between these two arguments is that they are opposed to the introduction of doubt at first to avoid the way of arguments: if he exists, on the one hand, God considers Why is it supposed to be "cause God has reason for his existence?", And assume that God exists to explain the existence of the universe and does not permit us anywhere. Without God, we can not explain God, with entities that we can not explain there is a certain universe, and God has a physical presence

Like ontology theory, cosmological theory is also known as the first factor argument and is a classical argument against the existence of God. But unlike the ontological debate, we conclude that God exists (with evidence) in a posteriori premise, as God is based on what is visible in the world and in the universe. It refers to the first reason behind the existence of the universe. Cosmic arguments are based on opportunities (depending on others) and something is causing them, so the existence of things is pointed out. In this discussion, it is also pointed out that things are present, but they do not exist and there are several reasons to be able to keep track of time. Time began to form about 1.5 billion years ago from the birth of the universe