Essay On Evaluating Arguments About The Existence Of God.

There are several arguments that have been presented in a bid to try to explain the existence of God. Even though they are based on certain philosophical issues, there exist pros and cons against each formulated issue. It’s therefore, not surprising to find that an argument has the same number of proponents and opponents. Even though there are several theories out there about the existence of God, some are quite valid while the rest are just mere imaginations. A significant argument about the existence of God is the cosmological argument. The cosmological argument heavily borrows from the existence of the universe, an item it calls the cosmos.
It’s from the existence of the universe that reasons for the existence of God is deduced. Nonetheless, the argument has several forms, the basis and the validity of the existence of God can take any or all of the forms. However, the most significant form of the cosmological argument is the Kalam cosmological argument. In relation to the universe, the Kalam cosmological argument is primarily based on the temporal nature of the universe. According to the theory, the beginning of the World was temporal and not indefinite as one would believe. From the knowledge that the universe had a temporal beginning, it deduces the reasons that God too exist.
It therefore, means that the universe cannot be its cause alone; something else must have been its cause. To expand further, it means the universe has a cause and the cause cannot be within it, the cause must be an external cause. It therefore, makes a conclusion that if indeed the universe exists, then the cause must be separate from the universe, a fact that is attributed to the existence of God. The final conclusion is that if the universe exists, then God must be existing.
However, the cosmological argument is not quite clear. It vaguely makes an argument that there must have been an external cause out of the universe for the universe to exist. The success of the argument is made from weak points thereby making it fallacious. If the argument were to succeed that it could not have made an assumption that there must have been an external cause without categorically asserting it was. Furthermore, the argument ties the beginning of the universe to the existence of an external cause.
Nonetheless, the argument does not categorically assert that the external cause was God; neither can it have valid proofs for it. From scientific approaches, God cannot be the only external cause outside the universe, there are other external causes too; a good example of an external cause is theory of multiverse. From a scientific approach, we might want to agree or even believe the cosmological argument but we don’t have substantive evidence that the external cause was God, it could have originated from other cause too, perhaps from the multiverse theory. Therefore, this theory is not succinct enough, its success is dwindling too.