Cosmological Argument Research Articles

On Tang Junyi’s Critique of Anselm’s Argument for the Existence of God

Anselm’s argument for the existence of God posits that the concept of God inherently implies its existence. Tang Junyi critiques this argument from two fundamental angles. Firstly, he argues that the contingency of human thought places an unwarranted burden of proof on the existence of God, introducing an inherent contradiction within the argument’s premise. Secondly, he contends that Anselm’s argument fails to deduce the existence of God from empirical things. Tang’s empirical approach to critiquing the argument bears a superficial resemblance to St. Thomas Aquinas’s cosmological argument for God’s existence, yet a profound difference exists between the two, precluding their equivalence. Delving deeper, Tang’s critique is rooted in the Confucian philosophy. Nevertheless, Tang’s critique, while insightful, does not fully dismantle Anselm’s argument, underscoring the intrinsic differences and tensions between Chinese and Western perspectives on religion and philosophy.

Kritik Argumen Kosmologis Al-Ghazali terhadap Konsep Penciptaan Alam menurut Stephen Hawking

In the existence of God, the cosmological argument rests on the novelty aspect of nature. Although the big bang theory supports the assumption that nature has a beginning, according to Stephen Hawking, nature can begin independently without God's intervention. The purpose of this research is to show the failure of the concept of the creation of the universe according to Stephen Hawking through Al-Ghazali's cosmological argument. The problem formulations that need to be answered are: (1) what is Stephen Hawking's view on the big bang theory, leading him to conclude that the universe could have been created independently?; and (2) how is the construction of Al-Ghazali's cosmological argument relevant to criticize this view? The approach in this research is a research model on scientific theory. With the material object in the form of the concept of the creation of the universe according to Stephen Hawking which is reviewed through the formal object of Al-Ghazali's cosmological argument. This research results in conclusions. First, Stephen Hawking's view of the big bang theory based on scientific determinism has consequences for deism and atheism. Second, the construction of Al-Ghazali's cosmological argument is relevant based on his criticism of the emanation theory which has identical consequences with Stephen Hawking's scientific determinism view. The critique shows that it is impossible for the universe to be created out of nothing independently, because the creation of the universe at a certain time requires the existence of a principle of determination and the determinant factor also requires a willing personal agent, namely God. Another implication of this argument is that God has absolute power and freedom, both to create the universe or not and to intervene in its course.

Simülasyon Hipotezi ve Teizm: Çoklu Evrenler Bağlamında Bir Değerlendirme

Today, when plots, buildings and items in virtual universes are put up for sale, the question of whether the universes inhabited by real individuals can be produced is being debated. Many philosophers and scientists think that if technology continues to advance at its current rate, we will soon be able to produce universes similar to ours in the virtual environment. This point is the starting point of the famous simulation hypothesis. According to this theory, which many philosophers find reasonable, if we can produce virtual universes, it is highly probable that conscious beings in these universes can create their universes. But this situation also suggests the opposite: How can we be sure that we are not living in a simulation? Based on this argument, Nick Bostrom, an Oxford University philosopher, argues that we are almost certainly in a simulation. Because if most of the existing universes are simulations, it is much more likely that we are living in one of the virtual universes rather than the real one. Well, if the universe we live in is one of infinite universes and was brought into existence and designed by conscious beings in other universes, what would this mean for theism? From the perspective of classical theism, this universe was created and designed by God. For example, proponents of the cosmological argument claim that the universe had a beginning, while advocates of design proof argue that God designed this universe. Some assume that the idea that there are an infinite number of universes other than the one we live in is contrary to theism. Again, in many studies, we come across that the theory of multiverses is handled as an understanding of the universe in opposition to theism. While this study does not aim to defend the truth or falsity of the simulation hypothesis, it suggests that if this theory is assumed to be true, there will be no serious danger to theism. While doing this, the discussions in the context of the theory of multiverses and theism will be mentioned, and it will be argued that simulation universes do not contradict the existence of God.

COMO O PRINCÍPIO DA RAZÃO SUFICIENTE MINA O ARGUMENTO COSMOLÓGICO

ABSTRACT My aim here is to show how the Cosmological Argument (CA) is undermined by one of its own premises: the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR). Firstly, I explain the type of CA that I am thinking about (I). Secondly, I explain a traditional modal objection against the PSR, which is ultimately based upon our intuitions in favor of contingency (II). Thirdly, I show how this modal objection begs the question against the necessitarian, and then I reformulate the CA in more neutral terms (III). Fourthly, using this more neutral version of the CA, I argue that the main problem with the PSR goes way beyond its apparent necessitarian consequences. As an argument used by Bradley shows, embracing the rationalist path that underlies the PSR seems to commit us to a form of Radical Monism too (IV). Finally, I conclude by showing how this result ultimately undermines the CA itself (V).

An inexplicably good argument for causal finitism

Causal finitism, the view that the causal history of any event must be finite, has garnered much philosophical interest recently—especially because of its applicability to the Kalām cosmological argument. The most prominent argument for causal finitism is the Grim Reaper argument, which attempts to show that, if infinite causal histories are possible, then other paradoxical states of affairs must also be possible. However, this style of argument has been criticized on the grounds of (i) relying on controversial modal principles, and (ii) providing a false diagnosis of the paradoxes involved. In this paper, I develop a new kind of Grim Reaper argument immune to these criticisms. I show that, by using insights from the literature on time travel, causal finitists should instead argue that infinite causal histories are problematically inexplicable, as they entail the possibility of unexplained foiling mechanisms. The fruits of this paper are that (i) a novel supporting argument for the Kalām is developed, and (ii) along the way of building this argument, it is shown that the literatures on time travel and causal finitism are deeply and intimately connected.

Aspects of Axions and ALPs Phenomenology

The physics of axions and axion-like particles (ALPs) is enjoying an incredibly productive period, with many new experimental proposals, theoretical idea, and original astrophysical and cosmological arguments which help the search effort. The large number of experimental proposals is likely to lead to fundamental advances (perhaps, a discovery?) in the coming years. The aim of this article is to provide a very brief overview of some of the recent developments in axions and ALP phenomenology, and to discuss some relevant aspects in this important field. A particular attention is given to the definition of motivated regions in the axion parameters space, which should be the targets of experimental searches.

On the equivalence between Sáez–Ballester theory and Einstein-scalar field system

Here, we discuss a topic that comes up more often than expected: A same theory or theoretical model arises in two different presentations which are assumed to be actually different theories so that these are independently developed. Sometimes this leads to an unwanted doubling of the results. In this paper, we illustrate this issue with the example of two apparently different gravitational theories: (i) the (minimally coupled) Einstein-massless-scalar (EMS) system and (ii) the Sáez–Ballester theory (SBT). We demonstrate that the latter is not a scalar–tensor theory of gravity, as widely acknowledged. Moreover, SBT is identified with the EMS theory. As illustrations of this identification we show that several known solutions of SBT are also solutions of the EMS system and vice versa. Cosmological arguments are also considered. In particular, a dynamical systems-based demonstration of the dynamical equivalence between these theories is given. The study of the asymptotic dynamics of the Sáez–Ballester-based cosmological model shows that there are no equilibrium points which could be associated with accelerated expansion, unless one includes a cosmological constant term or a self-interacting scalar field. This is a well-known result for cosmological models which are based on the Einstein-self-interacting-scalar theory, also known as quintessence.

On God and the Beginning of the Universe: An Evaluation of Recent Discussions

Philosophical analysis is of vital importance for addressing the controversies in science and theology. This article evaluates the analyses concerning God and the beginning of the universe offered by a number of philosophers. It is shown that, while Linford is correct in that establishing that physical reality has a finite past is not sufficient for establishing that physical reality had a beginning, the objections which Linford, Schmid, Oberle, and Wielenberg have offered against the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God can be rebutted. The examination of the objections and rebuttals demonstrates how a more careful philosophical analyses of the issues concerning the argument against infinite causal regress, personal identity, timelessness, the definition and reducibility of time, and the causal principle can contribute to the interaction between science and theology.

From Aesthetic Virtues to God:

I argue that the aesthetic theoretical virtues of beauty, simplicity, and unification, as well as the evidential virtue of explanatory depth, can transform theistic-friendly personal cause (PC) arguments—like the kalām cosmological argument (KCA) and the fine-tuning argument—into stand-alone arguments for monotheism. The aesthetic virtues allow this by providing us with the grounds to rationally accept a perfect personal cause (i.e., God) as the best PC to believe in given the success of some PC argument. Using the KCA as an example, I argue that, once the KCA is accepted and a PC believed in, then a theory that posits a perfect PC as the cause of the universe is more beautiful, simpler, and has more unification and explanatory depth than the imperfect PC normally posited by the KCA’s standard conceptual analysis. And the same would hold true for any imperfect PC. Thus, once a PC argument has been accepted, the perfect PC theory is preferable to hold over any other PC theory. Finally, I address various objections to this reasoning.

A Theological Appraisal of the Notion of Divine Aseity

There are times when a shadow could be a reflection of reality. The existence of man denotes that the Supreme Being creates humankind and from the writer's perspective, over the years, the logical questions centre on the existence of God. Verifiably, man's existence is traceable to the biological evidence at birth, and the question is who is God and how does He come into being? The thrust of the paper is to discuss the rationale behind a Christian's faith in God, attempting to answer the question of the self-existence of God from philosophical and theological perspectives as a means of authenticating the doctrine of God concerning biblical justifications on the self-existence of God. The sovereignty of God is understood to mean that He is independent. The paper argues and alludes that the Word aseity comes from the Latin phrase a se, meaning ‘from’ or ‘by himself’. Aseity is arguably the most fundamental divine characteristic of God; the Church fathers acknowledged the role of philosophy in the doing of theology; this is established by discussing the interplay of philosophy and theology, with many considering that philosophy is significant to the theological appraisal of aseity. Philosophical arguments on the existence of God revolve around four major arguments, including the ontological arguments, cosmological arguments, teleological arguments and moral arguments. Theological assessment of the notion of divine aseity from a Christian perspective in the African context is traceable to the Africans' knowledge of God and the existence of God. This paper concludes that God is the most powerful being; it is only in God's existence that all things are meaningful and explainable; the paper also admits that God is self-sufficient and self-existent because He exists from nothing but His power and wisdom are eternal. Admittedly there are notable arguments for God's existence, including cosmological and ontological arguments. The sovereignty of God is understood to mean that He is independent, meaning that He depends on no one to survive. The fact that man can conceive the idea of God is in itself a unique proof that substantiates man's conviction about the divine aseity of God, and objectively, the concept of the doctrine God depicts that God's attribute has been defined as the core of a theological system of God.

The Cosmological Argument: For and Against

The Cosmological Argument: For and Against

Kalam Cosmological Argument and the actual infinity

The kalam cosmological argument has received a renewed attention in philosophical literature after several presentations and defenses of its versions offered by William Lane Craig. The crux of the debate about Craig?s a priori arguments in its favor has had mainly to do with the analysis of the concept of actual infinity and its implications for the possibility that the universe has an infinite past. While Craig?s arguments point to the counter-intuitiveness of the implications of the existence such a past, his critics offer reasons to think that his analysis is flawed in different respects, mostly due to inappropriate application of mathematical concept of an infinite set. I aim to show that the criticisms on offer have flaws of their own and, hence, fail to show that Craig?s reasoning is insufficient to offer serious reasons to doubt the coherence of the notion of the infinite past. I argue that a more serious threat to Craig?s arguments lies in certain types of symmetry between the past and the future.

Джонатан Эдвардс о доказательствах бытия Бога

This article analyzes the proofs for the existence of God offered by Jonathan Edwards. The notes known as "Miscellanies" as well as several other documents are the subject of the analysis. Edwards admits that it is not easy to prove the existence of God because of the corruption of human nature. If we did not already know a theistic thesis, we could hardly discover it ourselves, with our own reason. But this thesis is already known, and our disposition toward order, our search for causes, and our thirst for justice point to a disposition to seek proofs for the existence of God. A study of the sources shows that Edwards used various strategies to justify the thesis of God's existence. I show that these strategies depend on different types of assumptions and produce different results. The cosmological argument from contingency is supported by the idealist argument, the Eleatic-style reasoning, and the ontological argument. The idealist argument is based on J. Locke's assumption that solidity is an intrinsic characteristic of physical things. Edwards shows then that physical things do not possess an independent existence, for solidity can be reduced to resistance, and resistance is always resistance to something. What might be called the Eleatic argument is to prove the existence of something eternal. It depends on the referential understanding of the term "nothingness." The ontological argument proves the existence of something necessary. It depends on the meaningfulness of the concept "there is non else besides him". The cosmological argument from contingency therefore can only justify the existence of something necessary, eternal, and immaterial. However, this is not sufficient to justify theism. The cosmological argument from causality is based on the self-evidentness of the law of causality and shows the existence of a necessary first cause. The various teleological arguments justify the claim that there is an intelligent creator. The analogy between the mind of the creator and the human mind serves Edwards to refute deism and justify the need for religious worship of God.

A Mathematician Reads the Kalam Cosmological Argument

A Mathematician Reads the Kalam Cosmological Argument

Der kosmologische Gottesbeweis des Ralph von Battle. Rekonstruktion, Kritik und Einordnung

Abstract This paper reconstructs (in natural language) and discusses a proof of God’s existence by Anselm of Canterbury’s friend Ralph of Battle (1040–1124), developed in his recently edited De nesciente, a fictitious dialogue between a Christian and an atheist. Without precedent in antiquity and the Middle Ages, Ralph’s proof has never been examined in detail. It combines a “cogito” argument with a two-part cosmological argument. The paper first presents the textual basis and an exegetical interpretation of Ralph’s reasoning, classifies the parts of the proof historically and systematically, and then compares these with the proofs of God’s existence as well as other arguments in Anselm’s Proslogion and Monologion. Finally, it points out some similarities between Ralph’s “cogito” argument and a passage in the Liber pro insipiente, which may suggest that this anonymous critique of Anselm’s Proslogion proof was authored not by Gaunilo, as traditionally thought, but by Ralph.

Counting to infinity, successive addition, and the length of the past

The Successive Addition Argument (SAA) is one of the arguments proposed by the defenders of the Kalām Cosmological Argument to support the claim that the universe has a beginning. The main premise of SAA states that a collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite. This premise is challenged by an argument originally proposed by Fred Dretske. According to Dretske’s Argument (DA), the scenario of a counter who starts counting numbers and never stops can provide a counterexample to the main premise of SAA. I argue that neither DA nor its past-oriented counterpart—which discusses the scenario of a counter who has always been counting negative integers from the infinite past—can play a decisive role in our evaluation of the strength of the arguments that are intended to establish the finitude of the past based on the impossibility of an actually infinite number of successive additions.

Grounding, infinite regress, and the thomistic cosmological argument

Grounding, infinite regress, and the thomistic cosmological argument

Triplex Via and the ‘Gap Problem’ with Cosmological Arguments

AbstractAquinas’ five ways are often criticized because, unless further argumentation is supplied, their conclusion is not obviously identical to the God of classical theism. Such criticism overlooks the semantic and hermeneutic functions of natural theology. By fixing the referent for the word ‘God’, the five ways allow the philosopher to provide an intelligible account of divinity. This knowledge of the cause through its effects follows the systematic structure of the triplex via (causation, negation, and eminence), a program that guides Aquinas’ account of divine attributes all the way through Summa Theologiae I qq.2-26 and Summa Contra Gentiles I. By following this rational itinerary the demonstrative power of the ways can be better assessed, looking at them not as an apologetic exercise, but as a first step in the seek for a deeper understanding of the divine source of Creation.

Readings on the Definition and Arguments towards Atheism among Muslim Theologians and Philosophers

This study aims to discuss a preliminary analysis of responses by classical and contemporary Muslim scholars on Atheism and New Atheism and identify the approaches that have been taken by them. It also elucidates on type of arguments used by those scholars. While there are many studies about Atheism, New Atheism, and Islam, few or none of them preliminary analysed the works of classical and contemporary Muslim scholars. Selected books written by classical and contemporary Muslim scholars on Atheism and New Atheism were preliminarily reviewed and examined. This study found that the critiques of classical and contemporary Muslim scholars are constructive, systemic, and systematic in upholding the ʿaqīdah. Five renowned and essential rational arguments that are frequently used by classical and contemporary Muslim scholars are the ontological argument, argument from contingency, kalām cosmological argument, teleological argument, and moral argument. The researcher also believes that these respective arguments must also undergo reform (islāh), renewal (tajdīd), and constant improvement in areas or matters that are subject to change over time (mutaghayyirāt).

The Eclecticism of Proofs on the Road to Demonstrate The Existence of Allah: Examples of Dawwānī and Aḥmad Nūrī

İslâm inanç sisteminin en temel konusu ve gayesi şüphesiz marifetullah (Allah’ın bilinmesi) mevzuudur. Bu konuda yapılan çalışmalar literatürde daha çok isbât-ı vâcib olarak isimlendirilmekte, kelâm, felsefe ve tasavvuf ekollerinin her biri için en kıymetli mesai olarak kabul edilmektedir. Kelâm ekolleri daha çok İbn Sînâ’nın (ö. 428/1037) etkisiyle Fahreddin Râzî (ö. 606/1210) sonrası yoğun olarak bu kavramsallaştırmayı kullanmaya başlamıştır. Sûfiyye ise daha çok vahdet-i vücûd nazariyesi temelinde bu çalışmalara katılmıştır. Kelâm ilminde bütün inanç esasları en nihayetinde Allah’a imanı açıklamak ve güçlendirmek için temellendirilir. Bu sebeple Allah’a iman aslü’l-usûl (bütün ilkelerin aslı) olarak anılır. 
 Tarihî konjonktürde Kelâm ilmi içerde Müslümanların inanç meselelerini tartışırken dışarda da genişleyen İslâm coğrafyasının ortaya çıkardığı inanç meselelerine isbât-ı vâcib çalışmalarıyla cevap vermeye gayret etmiştir. Bu çerçevede nübüvvet ve âhiret konuları kelâma dahil edilmiştir. Kelâm tarihi başlangıcı itibariyle özellikle materyalist çevrelere karşı Allah’ın varlığını savunurken büyük ölçüde atomculuk nazariyesini kullanmıştır. Zaman içinde İslâm felsefesi ve tasavvufun sistemleşmesiyle beraber kelâmın hudûs delili, felsefenin imkân delili ve sûfiyyenin keşf ve ilham delili üç ayrı koldan bu mesaiyi güçlendirirken hem bu ekollerin kendi içindeki etkileşimi, hem de isbât-ı vâcib çalışmalarının muhataplarının çeşitlenmesi kullanılan delilleri birbirine yaklaştırmıştır. Özellikle Şehristânî (öl. 548/1153) ve Fahreddin Râzî (öl. 606/1210) sonrası terminoloji, konu ve metodoloji anlamında gerçekleşen yakınlaşma felsefî kelâm geleneğini ortaya çıkarmıştır. Bu süreçte ontolojik, kozmolojik ve teleolojik delillerin kullanımında kelâmcılar hudûs ve imkân kavramlarını birlikte kullanmaya başlamışlardır. Osmanlının son dönemlerine kadar takip edilmesi mümkün olan bu çalışmaların önemli temsilcilerinden Celâleddin ed-Devvânî’nin (öl. 908/1502) çalışmamıza konu olmasının sebebi de isbât-ı vâcib delillerini birlikte kullanmadaki mahareti ve kendisinden sonraki süreci etkileme gücü olarak özetlenebilir. Onun bu toparlayıcı özelliği kendisinden önceki isbât-ı vâcib çalışmalarının eksik taraflarını ikmal edip kendi eserlerinde meseleleri birleştirmesinde görülmektedir. Bu sebeple yazdığı risâlelere uzun yıllar şerh ve hâşiyeler yapılmış ve bu süreç XIX. yüzyıla kadar devam etmiştir.
 Özellikle bu yüz yılda materyalizmin yeniden Batıda güçlenmeye başlaması ve Osmanlıda bir kesim ilim ve fikir adamını etkilemesi benzer bir tarihî tecrübe anlamına gelmektedir. Bu sebeple Allah’ın varlık delillerinin yine birbirini destekleyerek kullanılmasının lüzumu hâsıl olmuştur. Çalışmamızda bu münasebetle sürecin geldiği noktayı görmek bakımından İslâm düşüncesinin üç temel ekolü olan kelâm, İslâm felsefesi ve tasavvufun isbât-ı vâcib konusunda ürettikleri ortak argümanları vukûfiyetle ele alan son dönem Osmanlı âlimlerinden Ahmed Nûri’nin (19. yüzyıl) görüşlerini de ele aldık.