The Cosmological Argument

Cosmological discussion Cosmological argument tries to prove the existence of God by showing that there are no restrictions on the existence of existing ones. It states that everything must have the last unresolved cause. The reason for this unknown reason is declared to be God. There are several forms of cosmological argument, but basically it is as follows. There is cosmological argument. These things may not exist. Whatever the possibility of existence, it still exists and already exists.

Kalām's cosmological argument is a contemporary expression of the cosmological argument about the existence of God, named after Warrior Lane Craig in his "Calm Cosmology" by Karam (medieval Islamic academic philosophy) It was done. (TheKalāmCosmologicalArgument, 1979) promoted. This argument is a variant of Aristotle's indifferent promoter, which was named after the medieval Islamic academic philosophy and because of the possibility of Craig's opposition to the actual infinite existence Craig became a philosophy of the 11th century Go back. Home Argalari

I think the best cosmological argument is Leibniz 's cosmological argument version. This argument is partly ex posterior as it attracts the universe, and part of it is a priori. Because it appeals to the principle of metaphysics (the difference between accidentality and necessity). Its potential advantage over some scientific theological proof is that it does not depend much on the details of modern physics and cosmology. It works at a higher level. Even if the universe does not begin, in principle, you can still establish a successful Leibniz cosmology argument. Even if the present theory in modern physics and cosmology is thoroughly revised, it does not affect Leibniz 's cosmological argument.

Like most arguments about the existence of God, cosmological arguments exist in many forms; here two are discussed: cosmological arguments of time, Kalam (ie the first argument), and division Discussion of style. The main difference between these two arguments is that they avoid the first opposition to the argument and cast the question "is there a reason for that existence in God?" Then suppose that God exists to explain the existence of the universe and we will not take us anywhere. Without God, we have an entity that we can not explain, there is a universe; there is an entity with God, we can not explain, that is God.