Cosmological argument: Difference between revisions

Certain versions of the argument attempt to show the [[universe]] as having a beginning like the kalam cosmological argument. It does not assume that there was a beginning however but  demonstrates the premise by appealing to both a philosophic method and scientific methodologies. Scientific evidence like the [[big bang theory]] or philosophical arguments like reasons why an actual infinite cannot exist are used to defend particular premises. However outside of the kalam cosmological argument, the [[history]] predominately does not rely on a beginning of the universe.

There are premises that help sketch out a general pattern of approach for the cosmological argument. It takes into account both medieval and more modern formulations. As follows is the general premises;

Georg Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) is famously known for advancing a particular version of the cosmological argument with Samuel Clarke (1675–1729) reaffirming. The Leibnizian version has five premises. Its main focus is on "sufficient reason"<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/ Cosmological Argument] By Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. First published Tue Jul 13, 2004; substantive revision Thu Sep 11, 2008</ref> to a greater degree than other versions. It is from his argument that the overall feel of the cosmological argument can be found in. Contingencies and necessary beings make up his discourse. This leads to the fact that there must be something outside of the universe of contingencies that is itself not contingent or reliant upon anything else, and so is the necessary being God.

 

The Leibnizian cosmological argument states;