The arguments presented from William Rowe in The Cosmological Argument conclude that although the Cosmological Argument might be a sound argument, it does not provide good rational grounds for believing that among those beings that exist there is one whose existence is accounted for by its own nature. Rowe reasons that it does not attempt to prove anything about the first cause or about God, except to argue that such a cause must exist. Defenders of the argument reply that the Principles of Sufficient Reason are necessary to make the universe intelligible. Without such presuppositions, science itself would be undercut.
The strengths of the Cosmological Argument are its simplicity and easily comprehensible concept that there cannot be infinite causes to an event. It is perfectly logical to assert that objects do not bring themselves into existence and must, therefore, have causes. But if all things need a cause to exist, then God Himself must also, by definition, need a cause to exist. However, contrary to the underlying definition, God is uncaused. If the argument was sound, it still remains to be proven that such creature is the God of religion, and if so, of what religion. Certain beliefs were meant to remain uncertain since uncertainty is what inspires interest and ignites discussion and reason. Such reason is displayed in Descartes' ontological argument which underlies two central tenets of his philosophy - the theory of innate ideas and the doctrine of clear and distinct perception. He professes not to rely on an arbitrary definition of God but rather on an innate idea whose content is "given." Descartes' version is also based on simplicity. God's existence is inferred directly from the fact that necessary existence is contained in the clear and distinct idea of a supremely perfect being. God is of supremely perfect nature, yet such perfection can never be fully grasped nor duplicated since He created all beings of imperfect quality. Both the Cosmological...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document