Running head: PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION

Philosophy of Religion
Name
Tutor
Institution
Course
Date

PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION

Philosophy of Religion
Introduction

PART ONE: DISCUSS TWO ARGUMENTS ON THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

Two contentions for the existence of God include the cosmological and teleological
contentions. Both these contentions are a posteriori contentions for the presence of God
predicated on our perceptions of the nature and conduct of the universe, and use deductive
thinking to infer that God exists. In spite of the fact that they are comparative in this and different
respects, they have altogether different sensible structures while both prompting the same
conclusion that God should fundamentally exist.
The existence of God and faith have for some time been the subject of warmed level
headed discussions. Most certifications of the presence of god are set in clarification of the
riddles required in the nature and source of our universe and of human life. While the reality of
the matter is that in all of mankind's history we have neglected to land at conclusive responses
for puzzling inquiries of this assortment, faith in the presence of god by and by serves as a poor
and pointless clarification.
Then again, all through history, progress in the field of science and innovation has kept
on developing our insight into a universe once taken to be comprehended from the earlier, the
geocentric model for instance. Over and over it has been exhibited that there are regular
clarifications to the apparently mysterious. The weight of evidence lies in our material world and
it is nonsensical to trust that god should essentially exist without a superior answer.

PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION

Plato contended one of the Cosmological contentions most punctual structures. He

contended that the ability to deliver development consistently precedes the ability to get it and
pass it on. This essentially implies if there if development, then something needs to have brought
on this. This couldn't intelligently continue for unendingness, so there must be a solitary singular
being that brought on this chain of occasions. This he calls the First Mover. Aristotle additionally
had faith in the Prime mover, the uncaused cause, the first cause. In this regard the two
contentions are fundamentally the same as.
The cosmological contention, otherwise called the principal cause contention, is a
traditional contention for the existence of God. The word cosmological originates from the Greek
for request and it is an inductive contention as the premises are valid yet the conclusion may not
be, and it is additionally manufactured where the fact of the matter is dictated by experience and
should be demonstrated. It is additionally a posteriori furthermore in light of characteristic
religious philosophy. The Cosmological contention finds its answer for at the start of the universe
through causes meaning everything is caused by something, or everything is reliant on something
else. The contention endeavors to discover confirmation for existence of God expressing that as
something can't originate from nothing God must exist all together to anything and everything
else to exist.
The cosmological contention basically depends on the rationale that each limited being or
event in the universe as we watch it has a cause, and that nothing limited or unforeseen might be
the reason for itself. Since a causal chain may not be unbounded long, as is contended by
Aquinas and others in view of the way of causation, there must be a first cause or prime mover of
the universe. The cosmological contention has additionally generally summoned the guideline of
adequate reason expressing that for each element or occasion that exists, there is an adequate

PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION

reason or clarification with respect to why that substance or occasion exists. Aquinas attests that
the main substance equipped for being without cause is God. Since the universe does in certainty
exist, this thus requires the existence of God.
The teleological contention is on a very basic level in view of the idea of configuration
which we as people watch and experience as a characteristic part of the universe and our own
particular imaginative capacity. This contention reasons that the universe is among numerous
things mind boggling, efficient, and deliberate. More critical to this contention than basic
inactive physical matter, are procedures, for example, development, natural life frames, and the
capacities thereof. Since none of the previously stated substances or qualities happens
haphazardly or inadvertently, they more likely than not been made or planned by a conscious,
astute, or deliberate being. As the teleological contention reasons, unpredictability suggests an
originator. Since this many-sided quality and deliberateness are obviously apparent in the
universe and in nature, it takes after that the universe has a creator.
The contrasts between these contentions is endless supply of their depictions in that the
cosmological is gotten from our comprehension of presence and causality, while the teleological
requests more to our ideas of reason and plan, and makes instigations in light of these ideas.
They are both imperative contentions that bring up sensible issues and conclusions in light of our
comprehension of the universe and nature, yet there are however considerable and substantial
shortcomings and petulant zones inside both these contentions.
Giving consideration first to the cosmological contention, one of the conspicuous
incredulity's raised is as to why we should be advocated in inferring that an endless relapse of
causes is impractical. In view of our comprehension of time, we may be similarly as supported in

PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION

belligerence that it could retreat limitlessly into the past as we are in belligerence that it has a
starting. Since we reason that time may proceed boundlessly into the future, it should likewise do
likewise before.
Notwithstanding assuming the most coherent cutting edge conclusions which in certainty
support the cosmological contention, for example, the theory of how things came to be, this
thought sets that time itself started with the universe and we hence have no ability to think about
what might've existed outside or prior to this event, nor even the proper dialect to depict it.
Besides regardless of the possibility that we were to concur that a first cause fundamentally
exists, there is the following inquiry in the matter of why this cause must be a conscious being.
The cosmological contention offers no persuading reason concerning why this first cause should
essentially be a being or the like rather than some different oblivious cause, perhaps even evoked
from different measurements or parts of physical reality starting yet obscure to us.
One of the principal defects evident inside the teleological contention is with respect to
the rationale behind multifaceted nature requiring plan, especially that each article or process
referred to by the teleological contention exists by the basic playing out of physical laws of the
universe. We as people can make and plan items or frameworks, yet these are not composed in
the same sense that nature outlines a tree for occasion. Since we see and know about our own
inventive abilities, it is a shortsighted extrapolation to reason that the universe was comparatively
shaped.
Moreover a significant number of the procedures in nature which appear to be deliberate
at first glance are in certainty just the playing out of arbitrary events or causal chains.
Development, however it seemingly seems to support intricacy and a 'movement', is just the

PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION

consequence of arbitrary determination and chance event subject to the same physical laws as
everything else in the universe. Practically we can just comprehend the nearness of outline by
human capacities to the degree that it varies from the attributes of nature and hence gathering the
universe's configuration in view of this idea includes the utilization of unsound rationale.
In conclusion the cosmological and teleological contentions both give remarkable
chances to the examination of essential parts of nature and the universe and consider vital open
deliberation on what conclusions can sensibly be drawn from our experience of them. In spite of
the fact that nor is absolved from scrutinize I think that they will keep on offering an
establishment for civil argument of the existence of God
PART TWO: DISCUSS THOMAS AQUINAS ARGUMENT EXPLANATION ON THE
EXISTENCE OF GOD
The great Catholic thinker, philosopher and theologian St. Thomas Aquinas summarized
his cosmological contention in the Summa Theologia. In this philosophical impeccable
masterpiece, St. Thomas creates five ways that we can know God exists. His underlying three
courses deal with the cosmological dispute: St. Aquinas battles that there are things on the planet
in development (this basically infers things are changing) and that whatever is in development
almost certainly been set in development by something else in development.
St. Thomas Aquinas' Cosmological Argument
Aquinas holds that, whatever is in development must be put in development by another,"
and that, "this can't proceed to boundlessness, from that point forward there would be no first
mover." Hence St. Thomas battles that in order to wipe out the unending chain of developments;
there must be a first mover and wellspring of all development, God.

PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION

The second way is in a general sense the same as the first. It fights that, In the domain of
sense we find there is a solicitation of capable purposes. There is no case known (nor is it,
actually, possible) in which a thing is seen to be the capable inspiration of itself; for so it is
before itself, which is stunning. By this he suggests that anything, circumstance or event can't
change itself, yet can simply change something else (thought of compelling point). Since there is
a progression of causes in which the string can't be boundless then all causes must credit
themselves to a first cause: God.
The third way furthermore fights using the possibility of a chain of causes. St. Thomas
observes that things in our world owe their nearness to something else on the planet. Aquinas
calls this the strategy for credibility and need, suggesting that all things made possible,
essentially credit their nearness to some earlier thing. Nobody yet God can be the wellspring for's
the love of all that is pure and holy since he is a being having its own specific need and does not
require a past thing to make him exist. All things existing can take after themselves in a chain
back to God.
Thomas Aquinas made a few contentions for the presence of God a considerable lot of
which have their establishments in our perceptions of the characteristic world around us. The
subject of this work, composed by Thomas Aquinas, concentrates on the presence of God and
regardless of whether it can be demonstrated. The three principle questions Aquinas locations are
whether the presence of God is undeniable, whether it can be shown that God exists, and whether
God exists. Aquinas presents protests to his thoughts, and after that returns to give his countercontention. The complaints for the primary inquiry make the case that the presence of God is
plainly obvious on account of the presence of truth and in light of the fact that when something
exists rationally, it exists really.

PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION

Aquinas disproves these contentions, saying that there is not one conclusive truth, or
Primal Truth, that applies to all individuals, and that having God exists is not the same as
knowing completely that God exists. In this manner, the presence of God is not plainly obvious.
The complaints for the second question say that the presence of God can't be exhibited on the
grounds that the conviction that God exists involves confidence, which can't be demonstrated
deductively; we can't know the complete quintessence of God; and God's belongings can't be
proportioned to him because of the way that he is limitless and his belongings are limited.
Aquinas argument that there is not one Primal Truth, and his explanation for the existence of
evil, because I dont think that his reasoning for these statements was as in-depth as it could have
been, or as complete as the counter-arguments he offered concerning other objections.
Conclusion

References
Copan, P. (2013). Routledge companion to philosophy of religion. Routledge.
Evans, C. S. (2014). Moral arguments for the existence of God.
Kenny, A. (2014). Five Ways: St Thomas Aquinas Vo. Routledge.
Ratzsch, D. (2015). Teleological Arguments for Gods Existence.
Rooney, J. D. (2013). Evolutionary Biology and Classical Teleological Arguments for God's
Existence. The Heythrop Journal, 54(4), 617-630.
Swinburne, R. (2013). Probabilistic Arguments for the Existence of God. Fundamento: Revista
de Pesquisa em Filosofia, (7).

PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION