THE REASONABLENESS OF ACCEPTING OR REJECTING THE MODAL COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT:
In this essay I shall explain why it is reasonable to accept "The Modal Cosmological Argument" as a rational explanation for the existence of God.
The modal cosmological argument makes use of "modal" elements such as possibility, necessary existence and contingent existence to prove that a necessary being - namely God - exists. It also applies to the entire cosmos and all possible cosmoi and therefore deemed to be "cosmological". Medieval theologians and philosophers of different religious views have developed the MCA over time. Examples include; the Christian Thomas Aquinas, the Islamic Al Kindi Ibn Sina and the Jewish Moses Mainmonides. *
The argument begins with the notion that every existing being or being which existed can either be a contingent being (something that depends on something other than itself for it's existence) or self-existent. The second premise argues that if every being were dependent one would find that no being at all would ever exist or even come into existence. However, it is clear that some being does in fact exist even if it is only myself and therefore there MUST be at least one being who is independent, necessary and self-existing.* It is this being that we take to be God.
This denial of universal dependancy stated in the second premise is known as the "Cosmological Insight". The logic behind the cosmological insight can be illustrated using a simple analogy involving train coaches. A coach by nature relies on something else in order to move. If there was a system in which there were only train coaches present, one would find that there would be no motion. It would not matter whether there are an infinite series of coaches attached to one another or if they formed a complex loop. In order to introduce motion, one needs to add something radically different to the system which moves of its own accord. In this case it would be a locomotive. The...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document