“Science a contingent being or fact of motion

“Science works on the frontier between
knowledge and ignorance. We’re not afraid to admit what we don’t know. There is
no shame in that. The only shame is to pretend we have all the answers.” Carl Sagan spoke this powerful phrase
in his science documentary, Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey. I realized, after
hearing this profound statement, what was worth arguing and fighting for in this
essay. In this paper, I will present an in-depth argument attempting to
validate Leibniz’s Cosmological Argument with relation to the idea of the first
cause. A cosmological argument such as this argues that a cosmic feature such
as the existence of a contingent being or fact of motion is explained in terms
of the activity of a first cause, which is God. Leibniz’s cosmological argument
for the first cause, interpreted in some cases as God, remains a valid one even
in the face of such critical arguments as the Gap Problem or the Taxicab
Problem.

            Leibniz’s
cosmological arguments debates that the individual things, or the entire
collection of series of things, needs some explanation for its existence. This
is known as the Principle of Sufficient Reason. The basic idea behind the
principle can be described with an example on how we could take any feature of
the world and just accept the way it is because there must be an explanation
behind it. Leibniz’s concludes that the most applicable explanation for the
creation of the cosmos is with the existence of a necessary being whose non-existence
is an impossibility, and the necessary being is referred to the existence of
God. However, the Cosmological argument is more than that, it argues from some
grand cosmological feature, which could not even in principle have a material
or efficient cause which could be discovered by science.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

One of the most famous problems that is
faced by the cosmological argument is the Taxicab
Problem. The name of this problem is originated from a quip of Schopenhauer
where he states that the Principle of Sufficient Reason is like a taxicab
because once used, it is sent away. A famous formulation is ‘If God is the
cause of the universe, what is the cause of God?’ (Pruss, 2006). A typical explanation would argue that the case of the First Cause
would not be affected because the Principle of Sufficient Reason is applied. Furthermore,
since the first cause of the cosmological arguments is based on the existence
of a necessary being and The Principle of Sufficient Reasons as defended
applies only to contingent states of affairs, the problem of applying the
Principle of Sufficient Reasons to the existence of the necessary being does
not arise. And even if one defended the Principle of Sufficient Reasons explained
by the necessity of its existence, or that there is a sound ontological
argument which we simply have not been smart enough to find yet.

 The Gap Problem has yet
to see as much progress in finding the logic of the cosmological argument
because it is merely sociological.  The typical philosophical atheist or
agnostic not only doesn’t believe in God, but also doesn’t believe in a
necessarily existing first cause while the standard philosophers who
accepts a necessarily existing first cause is also a theist.  Therefore, since
there is a lack of audiences on arguments that the necessary existing first
cause is God, it makes much more sense to clarify on the argument of the First
Cause, and then only proceed with the argument that there is such necessary
being such as God.

            Probably the most important part of the Gap
Problem is the question whether the first cause is an agent.  After all,
if the First Causes remained being all non-agentive necessarily existing constituents
that arbitrarily spits out islands universes (the big bang theory), then the
conclusion of the cosmological argument would be incompatible with theism.

Other than that, there is the
question of the other attributes that God has been traditionally been described
to be omniscience, omnipotence, transcendence and, crucially, perfect
goodness.  At the same time, it is quite rational for a defender of the
cosmological argument to stop deriving the attributes of the First Cause at
some point, and say that the other attributes are to be accepted by a
combination of faith and data from other arguments for the existence of
God.  In any case, are is the Christian cosmological arguer who claims to
be able to show that the First Cause is a Trinity, and indeed Catholic theologians
such as Thomas Aquinas may say this is good, since that God is a Trinity is a
matter of faith.  Nor does the inability to show by reasoned arguments
that the First Cause has some attributes provide much of an argument against the claim that the First
Cause has that attribute.

           
There are two universal methodologies for connecting the gap between the First
Cause and

God, which is through
inductive arguments and metaphysical arguments.  Inductive arguments may
claim that supposing that the First Cause demonstrates some attribute is the
best explanation of some feature of the First Cause’s effects, and in doing so,
the arguments may reinterpret the considerations of design arguments. On the
other hand, metaphysical arguments emphasize that a First Cause must have some
special metaphysical feature, such as being simple or being pure actuality, from
which a number of other attributes follows. Therefore, with The Gap Problem
trying to prove that the First Cause’s activity must in some ways explain
everything contingent. There is an obvious response to this
which overruled this objection. Leibniz’s argument does not say that everything
needs an explanation, but only that all contingent things needs an explanation.

So the principle of sufficient reason does not imply that God needs an
explanation, since God is a necessary being.

Conclusively, the Cosmological arguments are able
to overcome the Taxicab problem and The Gap Problem by applying Principle of
Sufficient Reason. This ultimate conclusion of the universe and existence
inescapably leads to the existence of God.  If an internally consistent model of God can
be made, meaning a being that is omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence: God
not only must exist, he already does and always has for anything that can be
fully comprehended and defined through information is totally equivalent to
anything that we know to exist. Now, what causes a model to be processed
compared to one that can simply exist? The answer is something capable of
comprehending that process and running the math through each step. We see this
in computers all the time. The human mind is also capable of comprehending
mathematical processes and finding the conclusions, but we are incapable of
running a continual process that can continue forever but a computer could if
it could stay on forever. We and everything around us is a mathematical process
(a model of information) currently being processed and this is how we are
experiencing time, otherwise we and every moment of our existence would simply
just exist with unrealized potential. What is processing us and everything
around us? God of course. What’s processing God, himself. Truth and information
doesn’t need a computer to exist, they simply do and any potential anything
exists in every moment of time in one, including God. 

x

Hi!
I'm Harold!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out