The Cosmological Argument is comprised on the notions of the existence of the self-existent being(s) and dependent beings. A self-existent being meaning a being whose existence is unreliant on the existence of another. This self-existent being is what is normally termed God. A further definition includes a being whose existence is accounted for by its own nature which once again fits the description of God. There are three primary arguments contained in the Cosmological Argument.
1. Every being that exists or did exist is either a dependent being or self-existent being
2. Not every being can be a dependent being
3. There is a self-existent being
These arguments being justified through the means of being deductively valid. The Principle of Sufficient Reasoning (PSR) also chimes into the notion of the first argument. The PSR asserts that each being that exists or once existed is either explained by the existence of another (dependent being or self-existent being) or neither. This all to say that there is either a series of dependent being from which the series of dependent being originated, or one self-existent being who created the series of dependent beings, or there is no origination at all but simply the acknowledgement of an existence.
However to claim that every being has an explanation for its existence, is to be ignorant of the possibility that beings exist without explanation. This means that every individual being has a reason for its existence and cannot be concluded that its existence is not due to any single cause or effect. Because in this series of existing, dependent beings are all due to a chain of cause and effect. (Ex: because dependent being A1 exists (cause), dependent being A2 (effect), and A3, and A4 and so on and so forth). Although with this claim being denied, by some critics, it goes against the very ecosystem in which all beings actively exist. If one were to look in a more primitive sense one can look at the food chain. Like in this photo:
1. Every being that exists or did exist is either a dependent being or self-existent being
2. Not every being can be a dependent being
3. There is a self-existent being
These arguments being justified through the means of being deductively valid. The Principle of Sufficient Reasoning (PSR) also chimes into the notion of the first argument. The PSR asserts that each being that exists or once existed is either explained by the existence of another (dependent being or self-existent being) or neither. This all to say that there is either a series of dependent being from which the series of dependent being originated, or one self-existent being who created the series of dependent beings, or there is no origination at all but simply the acknowledgement of an existence.
However to claim that every being has an explanation for its existence, is to be ignorant of the possibility that beings exist without explanation. This means that every individual being has a reason for its existence and cannot be concluded that its existence is not due to any single cause or effect. Because in this series of existing, dependent beings are all due to a chain of cause and effect. (Ex: because dependent being A1 exists (cause), dependent being A2 (effect), and A3, and A4 and so on and so forth). Although with this claim being denied, by some critics, it goes against the very ecosystem in which all beings actively exist. If one were to look in a more primitive sense one can look at the food chain. Like in this photo:
There is the producer (grass), that is food to the grasshopper, then the grasshopper provides nourishment to the bird, the bird as nourishment to the snake, and the snake nourishment to the owl, and the owl creates waste or dies and is decomposed by the mushrooms who then create nutrients for the grass to grow and the cycle is then able to infinitely continue. But this chain can be simplified into two components, life and death. Without life, death could not exist and without death, life could not exist. These are cause and effect at its finest as well as the dependency of one on the other and vice versa. This could bring into question why is there a need for a series or cycle or chain like the food chain, just as one questions the necessity for the series of dependent beings. The lack of knowledge of where each individual being originates gives inquiry to the reason for its existence all together.
I really liked how you connected the theory to an example most people would recognize and understand. It really helped clarify the concept for me, and provided a broader understanding of the use of explaining existance. I also liked how you mentioned the speculation of "existance all together" due to the lack of knowledge on individual beings. This truly depicts this passage for me and makes me think deeper into it.
ReplyDeleteTaking into account the beginning of your post, I thoroughly enjoyed the picture that represents the chain we mentioned in class. I think it is important to see that the cause and effect can actually be just the cycle of life and death, like you simply stated.
ReplyDeleteWhat I am most intrigued about is how you mentioned, as human beings, we are created not for only one single purpose, but for many different reasons that we may not even know of yet.
I like the part about how humans existence isn't just for just one cause. However it interests me that we still can't prove what that purpose is let alone how the world came to be as well as its creator. But I would think we can all agree that everything was created by someone or something the issue is finding out how that someone or something came to be and the purpose of its creation.
DeleteVery nice! I really enjoyed reading this and I agree about the cycle you mentioned. It is true that most of what we know is a cycle, a cycle dependent on each other, even life and death. Life is a huge chain reaction. That still leaves the question of who set that chain into motion and why? The cycle leads me to believe "purpose" for most living things could just be being a part of a chain. The chain that keeps life going. A chain that is dependent but self sufficient as well. Now there is the why.
ReplyDeleteThank you guys for so much positive feedback! I was really trying to break it down into real life terms I figured we'd all understand. Glad I could help out some of you.
ReplyDelete