Introduction
Cosmological argument alludes to a family of ancient intellectual debates supporting the existence of God as the sole or ideal causality for the presence of the universe, independent of any of its distinguishing characteristics as examined by scientific knowledge. Samuel Clarke developed a multitude of arguments that are now known as the ‘Cosmological Argument, which ascribe rationality logically to the presence of a superior being that humanity refers to as God. Clarke’s cosmological justification differs significantly from other recognized theorists, even though they are all predicated on the premise that every being has a cause. Clarke’s thesis distinguishes out because the researcher contrasts contingent and fundamental entities strikingly. This paper explores Clarke’s cosmological argument; mainly, it gives a thesis and then discusses the assertion, criticisms of it, and scholarly reactions. At the conclusion of the essay, the main themes are reviewed.
Thesis
Cosmological considerations attempt to demonstrate something far more fundamental about the universe, such as its organized chain of causes and effects or its very creation. They contend that a property shared by all possible universes demonstrates a dependence or imperfection that testifies to a totally independent being as its origin. Therefore, this paper’s position is consistent with Clarke’s reasoning, which asserts that all beings are inherent or reliant on one entity that has existed for many years, with all other species deemed contingent or predicated on it. In addition, there is a reasonable explanation for the presence of every occurrence and item that has transpired. Due to this, nothing can survive without a plausible reason for its establishment. Every creature must have a cause, according to O’Connor’s interpretation of Clarke’s argument (2). Therefore, from the points highlighted in the thesis statement of this essay, this paper enumerates Clarke’s position on the existence of God.
Argument
Clarke’s argument is primarily based on the premise that every fundamental truth must be actual because of something entirely separate from itself. In addition, it assumes that specific assertions would be correct even if there were no finite thoughts (Rowe 118). Therefore, it concludes that essential truths cannot solely be valid on the foundation of human mental evidence. All realities are undoubtedly true by way of the patterns existing independently of any thinking. Clarke attempts to demonstrate in his thesis that at least one distinct being has existed forever. According to Clarke, every being is either a parasitic being or an autonomous being. Thus, the notion that all beings are reliant is untrue (Rowe 120). Therefore, there exists both a free and necessary existence of beings.
There are often at least three distinct perspectives on the expression. First, it is asserted that a being is indispensable if it does not rely on any other species casually and if all other entities depend on it; this aspect of essential being is essential to theism. When referring to objects or occurrences, contingent denotes dependence or causation. In other words, one action or happening depends on another. In contrast, necessity pertains to the reality that one object or occurrence is not dependent on another. Additionally, it is required that other objects depend on it. Rowe asserts that if something is more significant, it is considered essential (121). The term for this type of requirement is a factual obligation. Being a theist entails a firm belief in the presence of God, who is factually indispensable, with all other elements reliant or contingent on him.
Clarke’s interpretation of the cosmological argument relies on a very general aspect of the concept of reasonable justification, which appears to argue that there is a compelling rationale for the presence of every dependent creature, irrespective of whether it existed beforehand or not (Rowe 186). By pursuing an argument for the emergence of every being, the criterion of sufficient reason eliminates the idea that contingent entities have no meaning. This potentially encompasses the notion that the cosmos itself is a definite truth that exists without justification. The notion of sufficient grounds can exclude this possibility since it asserts that there are only two logically viable types of creatures. This appears to be a reality that excites many religious believers and agnostics, who then hunt for grounds to dismiss it. If one adopts the concept of appropriate explanation, which many people intuitively feel to be accurate, they are dedicated to the discussion’s assumptions and outcome.
Clarke’s interpretation of reasoning is a classic example of natural theology, although it does not adhere to the paradigm of what is widely known as classical theology. The most critical aspect of Clarke’s argumentation is its underlying opposition to naturalism and, more specifically, to naturalist hypotheses of the universe’s existence. In theology, naturalism is a concept that ties scientific technique to philosophy by asserting that all creatures and occurrences in the cosmos, regardless of their essential nature, are natural. Clearly, it contradicts Kitcher’s assertion that what we know disproves or invalidates supernatural religious beliefs.
Objections
Almeida argues that Clarke’s cosmological assertion is susceptible to three exceptions (13). The first issue has to do with the complex nature of the entire concept of absolute reality. Evidently, it is difficult to conceive of an essential creature that does not already exist. God cannot be the responsible account for the presence of a sequence of dependent creatures with no beginning in time, according to the second objection. This is predicated on the claim that causal relationship relates to temporal precedence and the origin of existence. Possibly, it is conceivable to think of a non-temporal causal relationship. God, existing beyond time, creates contingent entities that have always existed. Third, in a causal sequence of contingent entities without a chronological origin, each person will have a theoretical justification due to their predecessors. Assuming that there is no initial being, every reliant being must have a causal account rooted in earlier existing contingent beings. Nonetheless, if each contingent being has a plausible explanation, then the complete sequence of contingent beings must also have an interpretation.
Theoretically, a whole does not exist without its pieces, much like the person’s body is only entire when all its components are intact and operating correctly. Hume has also asserted that the word, necessary existence, is devoid of meaning (Almeida 15). The emergence of a necessary being would appear to imply that the world is itself a crucial creature. Thus, this essentially invalidates the necessity of a contingent creator as the universe’s origin. As such, this is related to the claim that the universe has existed since the beginning of time. Clarke’s reasoning fails to provide sufficient evidence to support his claims in this manner.
Responses
As Almeida points out, the criticisms of such thinkers as Hume and Kitcher demonstrate that Clarke’s reasoning has numerous flaws and is, therefore, not entirely compelling (3). Numerous advocates of Clarke’s argument, including Leibniz and Craig, have sought to clarify Clarke’s statement by illustrating the notion of sufficient reason. Clarke’s rendition of the cosmological argument is assumed to rely primarily on a generalized version of the concept of reasonable justification, which maintains that there is a powerful rationale for the emergence of every dependent creature, independent of whether it existed beforehand. Contrary to this, many philosophers, including Hume and Kant, have questioned its validity (Almeida 7). Clarke’s argument is partly predicated on the supposition that all realities are predicated on the notion that they must be accurate due to a factor completely apart from themselves. Clarke’s thesis is based on the assumption that his assertions are entirely factual; their integrity is provided as a certainty, even though they could not be genuine by merit of circumstances about human psychology exclusively.
Conclusions
Samuel Clarke formulated various arguments termed the cosmological argument, which scientifically attributes reasoning to the existence of a supreme being that humanity calls God. The cosmological argument refers to a collection of ancient philosophical discussions defending God’s existence as the solitary or ideal cause of the universe’s existence, regardless of its defining traits as assessed by scientific understanding. From the arguments offered in this essay, it is evident that Clarke’s work has several flaws despite being of significant importance to many people worldwide. Clarke’s thesis is not comprehensive, as evidenced by other scientists’ numerous criticisms and comments. For this reason, supporters of the cosmological hypothesis have attempted to provide justifications for certain aspects of Clarke’s reasoning. As previously stated, the most fundamental aspect of Clarke’s logic is its underlying opposition to naturalism and naturalist theories of the universe’s existence. As Kitcher observed, what people know excludes or debunks supernatural religious beliefs.
Works Cited
Almeida, Michael. Cosmological Arguments. Cambridge University Press, 2018.
O’Connor, Timothy. “Cosmological Argument.” The Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Religion, 2021, pp. 1-8. Web.
Rowe, William L. The Cosmological Argument. Fordham University Press, 2021.