The Premise of the Cosmological Arguement and Some Objections

It is impossible to base on a series of reality-dependent reality. Therefore, there is always an independent existence. The first premise of cosmological argument is that if there is nothing in the past now nothing exists. The second premise is that there is a certain fact that supports the causal claim of the first premise. At the moment, both of these premises seem reasonable, both because they are supported by PSRa, because they represent causal relationships and, in principle, need to explain the existing existence.

The subject I discuss in this article is whether or not ontology, cosmology or the theoretical argument provides sufficient evidence to prove the supreme existence. All three discussions support and oppose them, but they remain the topic of controversy, whether they prove the existence of God (from now on being regarded as the highest personal existence). The weakest of the three arguments is an ontological argument. Christian theologian Anselm (1033-1109) believes that we can get the greatest possible presence. He said that the existence of reality is more important than the existence of the soul. If so, the most likely fact that we can find in our head is not the greatest possible existence. Because it can actually see the same existence.

The basis of the cosmological argument is the empirical fact we know about the world such as "accidental existence, something in the movement, the universe beginning to exist" 2. We can not offer complete exploration. 3 If there is no infinite set of conditions, there must be some necessary existence, first factor, or personal entity to create our universe. For example, mathematics has been used to describe a series of numbers with infinite possibilities. There is no infinity.