ARGUMENTS
FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
1. INTRODUCTION
Does
god exists? This is one of prominent questions which has been debated and
defended by all the theistic and atheistic community over some thousand
centuries. Even almost all the prominent philosophers have given some
importance to this question in their discussion on the ultimate reality. An
answer to this question always has been uncertain, because someone’s answer may
not be right for other. It was necessary for the theist to give some valid
argument for the existence of god, which may give other a feeling that theist
are right about what they believe in. since the person of god
could not be seen by any human, concept of god has been a controversial issues throughout
the history among the all kind of people. When we look at the history at the
history, there have been many argument presented by theist in order to prove
the existence of god, which was claimed to the authentic and reasonable. So the
purpose of this paper is to look at the argument and to know how it proved the
existence of god convincingly.
2. COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
2.1. Definition of Cosmological
Argument
The
cosmological argument is an argument for the first cause which brought the
universe into existence, which also known as argument from first causation,
existence. [1]
In general pattern of argument, the inference has been derived from the fact
about world to the existence of a unique being, which is generally called God. The ancient philosophers have also thought
that the universe is contingent or dependent, which later led them to have the
thought that this contingent universe could have some explanation. On the basis this assumption, the
philosophers had supposed the first cause, necessary being, unmoved mover, a
personal being which caused or sustains the universe. At present time, the curiosity
of the people has gone so high to think that why there is something rather than
nothing. This question actually seeks the explanation for the existence of
contingent universe.[2]
2.2. History of Cosmological
Argument
Though
the origin of the cosmological argument, in the western philosophy, can be
traced backed to Plato’s laws, it was Aristotle who has well explained in his
physics and metaphysics. This idea had enriched in the Islamic philosophical
tradition, and developed into two types of arguments. Falasifia and Mutakallimum
are the two groups which developed the two different types of arguments for the
existence of god. Falasifia philosophers developed the argument from contingency,
which was taken and used by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theological. The Mutakallimum theologians developed a
kind of argument, in order to support the Islamic belief, from impossibility of
an infinite regress, which known as Kalam argument. Mutakallimum
theologians argued that everything that begins to exist requires a cause
for its beginning, because this world is composed of temporal phenomena lead by
others temporally ordered phenomena. Since it is impossible for the temporal
phenomena to continue to infinity, the world requires a beginning and a cause
for its beginning, namely, which is god. Bonaventure is the one who brought
Kalam argument into Christian tradition.
Georg
Wilhelm Leibniz and Samuel Clarke, the writers of Enlightenment reaffirmed the
cosmological argument. a new version of
Kalam argument was proposed by Leibniz, which basically was built on principle
of sufficient reason. According to this argument, no fact can be real without a
sufficient reason; there are sufficient reason for the series of things that
happened in the universe of creature, so the sufficient reason must also exist outside
of this contingent world. This version of Kalam argument was employed by Samuel
Clark in his cosmological argument. [3] In
the 18th century, so much of damage was done to the cosmological argument
by David Hume and Immanuel Kant. Even the theologians and the philosophers of
20 and 21st century had a healthy skepticism. But on the other hand,
Robert Knoos, William lane Craig, Richard Gale, Alexander Pruss, and Richard
Swinburne have tried to have a modified and strong version of cosmological
arguments.[4]
2.3. Types of Cosmological Argument
According
to Craig, there are three types of cosmological arguments. Basically they are called Kalam, Thomastic,
and Leibniz[5].
The first type of the argument is based
on the impossibility of infinite regress, which was mainly advocated by Thomas
Aquinas. The second type the Kalam argument is based on impossibility of infinite
temporal regress. The third type was embraced by Leibniz and Clarke, which is based
on principle of sufficient reason.[6]
2.4. Kalam Cosmological Argument
Kalam
argument is an argument from the existence of universe. The origin of the Kalam
argument can be dated back to the medieval Islamic philosophers, Al-Ghazali is
one among those. This has not been used well by other philosophers who came
after Mutakallimum theologian. But at present time, it is William lane Craig
who made it popular. Kalam argument is established on the point that the
universe has a beginning in time, and therefore the existence of universe requires
an explanation. [7]
As for today, the Kalam argument has become more popular both in apologetics
and philosophy of religion.
Kalam
argument begins with following syllogism:
1. Everything
that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The
universe began to exist.
3. Therefore,
the universe has a cause.
In Kalam
cosmological argument Craig offers two a priori arguments and two a posteriori arguments.
In his first argument Craig attempts to show that infinite sets of things
cannot exist in reality, and so the set of past events cannot be actually
infinite. In the second argument Craig shows that even if an infinite set of
things exist in reality, the members of it could not be successively crossed. Since
the members of the set of past events have been traversed, the set must be
finite.
Craig, in
the first a posteriori argument, implies the Big Bang theory of the origin of
the universe and an absolute beginning to space-time, in which Craig concludes
that past events are finite. In the second a posteriori argument, Craig implies
the second law of thermodynamics, which indicates an absolute beginning. Universe’s
winding down energy wise indicates that must have been wound up with massive impute
of usable energy.
The above
arguments have arrived at the conclusion that the universe has a beginning. And
since universe has a beginning, it must have a cause for its existence, and such
a cause should be impersonal. But now there arise two sorts of causes: personal
and impersonal. According to Craig the first cause can't be an impersonal
cause, rather it must be impersonal. And if the first cause were impersonal, it
must be either in a state of dormancy or activity. For if the cause were in a
state of dormancy, then event would remain in a permanent state of stillness. But,
if the cause were in a state of activity, then the universe would be eternal. Ultimately
what we have come to know is that the universe (effect) is finite. Therefore, it
is obvious that the universe did not arise from an impersonal cause, rather
from a personal cause.[8]
3. ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
3.1. Definition of Ontological
Argument
Ontological argument
is a philosophical argument, which uses ontology for the existence of God. There are many arguments which fall under the
category of the ontological, but they involve arguments about the state of
being or existing. Specially, the ontological arguments start with an a priori
theory about the structure of the universe. So now, it lead to the conclusion
that if organizational structure of universe is
true, then the argument will
provide reasons why God must exist.[9]
According to Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy, Ontological arguments are
arguments which are supposed to derive from reason alone. if we put in other
words, ontological arguments are nothing but analytic, in which a priori and necessary premises
leads to the conclusion that God exists.[10]
3.2. History of Ontological
Argument
It is well-known
that the ontological argument was first formulated in the eleventh century by
St Anselm the Archbishop of Canterbury, which we find in his Proslogium, Chapter two. The Benedictine monk Anselm was one of the
great philosopher and theologians of medieval period.[11]
In the Proslogion, St. Anselm explains the existence of God from the
concept of a being than which no greater can be conceived[12]. Anselm thought that once if it is
understood that god is that than which no grater can be conceived, then it must
make existence of god obvious.[13]
René Descartes, in
the seventeenth century, proposed a similar ontological argument of the
existence of god. Descartes, in the Fifth Meditation, demonstrate the
existence of God from the idea of a supremely perfect being. According to Descartes
there is no problem in conceiving a supremely perfect being who lacks existence
than there is in conceiving a triangle whose interior angles do not sum to 180
degrees. Therefore Descartes supposes that since we do conceive a supremely
perfect being, of which it is also possible to have an idea in our mind, one must
conclude that a supremely perfect being exists. [14]
Descartes escapes skepticism concerning his belief in God by stating that God
is no deceiver, and distinct perceptions of the external world can be trusted. [15]In
the early eighteenth century, after Anselm, Gottfried Leibniz attempted to fill
the Shortcoming of Descartes view. Leibniz thought that the arguments of
Descartes have failed to show that the idea of a supremely perfect being is
coherent. Since perfections are unanalysable, Leibniz concluded that all
perfections can co-exist together in a single entity.
A formal ontological
argument for God's existence, in modern time, was proposed by Kurt Gödel. And
this ontological argument was revived by Norman Malcolm in 1960, in which he
also located a second and stronger ontological argument in Anselm's work. But
later, Alvin Plantinga challenged this, and proposed an alternative argument,
based on modal logic.[16]
The ontological argument presented by Alvin Plantinga has connections to the
earlier arguments of St. Anselm, Descartes and Leibniz. In the early time, it
was Anselm and Gaunilo, a contemporary of St. Anselm were the first critics. In
the later period, Immanuel Kant gave the best known criticisms of ontological
arguments in his Critique of Pure Reason. According to Kant the
ontological arguments totally depends upon the implicit assumption that existence
is a predicate. [17]
3.3. Types of Ontological Argument
According to the classification of Oppy (1995)
there are eight major kinds of ontological arguments. They are such as,
definitional, conceptual, modal, Meinongian, experiential Mereological, higher-order,
and Hegelian.[18] From
the time of Anselm up to the modern days we have so many forms of ontological
arguments, which are basically similar to each other in concept but different
in formulation and approach. The first ontological argument was proposed by Anselm,
which was based on the premise that “the notion of a being that cannot be
conceived not to exist”. After Anselm, it was Rene Descartes who proposed
number of ontological arguments, which are less formal and less natural
intuition. Third modal of Ontological was the arguments of Gottfried Leibniz.
Gottfried argument was an attempt to revive the Descartes ontological argument.
Mulla Sadra, a Iranian Shia Islamic philosopher, proposed an different kind of
ontological argument. The influence of Avicenna played a great role I the
formation of the ontological argument of Sadra.
The concept of Sadra argument was based on “existence of perfection”. Kurt
Gödel, a mathematician, provided a formal ontological argument based on logic,
in which he uses the conception of properties in order to confirm the existence
of god. The most recent kind is Alvin Planting’s ontological argument. Alvin
Plantinga actually criticised Malcolm’s ontological argument and proposed a
variation of his own, in which he show the difference between greatness and
excellence. [19]
3.4. Anselm’s Ontological Argument
Anselm
has proposed two different versions of the ontological argument in the Proslogium.
When we compare the second version with first, it does not rely on problematic
claim and avoids many of the objections to the classic version.[20]
Ontological argument of Anselm was not intended to prove God's
existence, but rather it was a result of his meditation in which he documented
how the idea of God became self-evident to him.[21]
The
second argument of Anselm is this:
- By
definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
- A
being that necessarily
exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
- Thus,
by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not
necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is
greater than God.
- But
we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
- Thus,
if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in
reality.
- God
exists in the mind as an idea.
- Therefore,
God necessarily exists in reality.
Anselm defined God, In
Chapter two of the Proslogion, as a being than which no greater can be
conceived. Anselm’s ontological argument
is based on the hypothesis that god does not exist is supposed to conflict.
According to Anselm’s ontology the concept must exist either only in our mind,
or in both our mind and in reality. If such a being exists only in our mind,
then a greater being, that which exists in the mind and in reality, can be
conceived. Anselm, therefore, concludes that if we can conceive of a being than
which nothing greater can be conceived, it must also exist in reality. So then the being than which nothing greater
could be conceived and it must exist in reality. [22]
The
second version of argument relies on two important claims. Though this version of
argument includes a premise asserting that God is a being than which a greater
cannot be conceived, it is unlike the first, rather it relies on the claim that
necessary existence is perfection.
The second premise shows that a being whose existence is necessary is greater than a being
whose existence is not necessary.[23]
4. TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
4.1. Definition of Teleological Argument
The teleological
arguments are the arguments which try to prove the existence of god from the
order in the universe. This argument is best known as argument form design.[24]
Generally this argument made for an intelligent creator, based on the
observation of deliberate design in the natural world.[25]
The name teleology
actually comes from the word telos,
which means end or purpose. in the ontological argument, the order of the
universe tend to explain the purpose or some end towards which the universe is ordered. Therefore,
it is so easy to suppose that the universe is created by an intelligent being
for a purpose than to suppose that the universe came into existence by chance. [26]
4.2. History of Teleological Argument
It is believed to
be Socrates, Ancient Greece philosopher, the one who brought about the earliest
version of ontological argument. Plato, Aristotle and their students had
developed different kind of approach. But later time, the traditional argument
was carried and made versions by the classical philosophers such as Plotinus
and stoics, which were eventually accepted in the Abrahamic religion, especially
in Islamic religion. And in the medieval period, Al Ghazali, an Islamic
theologian used the design argument. At the same time, the Islamic tradition
did not consider this argument as necessary one, and the philosophers rejected
it as unconvincing. In the Christian realm, it was Thomas Aquinas who adopted
the design argument in his five ways of rational proof for the existence of
god. In the sixteenth century, it was
apparently used by the William Turner and John Ray (from England) in their
natural theology. In the early 18th century, William Derham had demonstrated
the being and attributes of God in his works Physico-Theology. Another prominent proponent was William Paley,
who presented the design argument with his version of the watchmaker analogy. The first use of the phrase "argument
from design" actually proposed by William Paley[27]
Modern time teleological
arguments have taken slightly a different way from the design argument
constructed by Paley. Paley had actually looked at the biological system and
impressed by the appearance of eye, animals, whereas the modern teleological
argument find the design in the physics. When the modern teleological arguments
focus on the fine-tuning in the universe, it, in fact looks at the way it is
fine tuned in order to support the life.[28]
All the versions of
teleological arguments have gone under general and special criticism. David
Hume had made a general logical argument against design argument in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Even Charles
Darwin had attempted to explain the biological complexity in his book origin of
species. The central part of the
creationism is the argument from intelligent design, which is presented to
explain the scientific opposition to evolution.[29]
4.3.
Types of Teleological Argument
Mainly there are
three types of teleological arguments. First is an argument from analogy. This
argument was developed by William Paley in his natural theology. Paley compared
the universe with the watch, in which, he says that the universe is consist of
many complex parts which function in harmony towards some useful end. According
to Paley, just as the parts of the watch are ordered in that manner that they
may measure the time, and so as with the parts of universe, which work in order
to support the life. Thus, the argument of Paley for the intelligent design was
formed out the comparison between watch and universe.
Second is an
argument from fine-tuning. This form of teleological argument for the existence
of God is based on the state of universe. By referring to the state of the
universe, the argument suggests that the universe was created by an intelligent
being for the purpose of supporting life. Because, the succession of agreements
between our numbers stands for an explanation, which, in other way, suggest
that there is some cause of their agreement.
Third is
an argument from desire. This version of teleological argument from desire is
associated with CS Lewis. By stating term desire, Lewis actually meant that
there is something that which fulfils the every natural desire and especially
each one of us has the desire for communion with god. So the communion with god
is possible only if god exists, therefore god must exist.[30]
4.4. Paley’s Teleological
Argument
Paley’s
Teleological Argument is known as the Watchmaker Argument. this typical analogy
of the watch maker was introduced by William Paley in 17th century.in
this argument, Paley states , since the universe and living things in it
demonstrate an order, consistency, unity, and pattern, there must be a
designer.
Paley's argument is as follows:
1. Human
artefacts are products of intelligent design.
2.
The universe resembles human artifacts.
3.
Therefore the universe is a product of
intelligent design.
4.
But the universe is complex and gigantic
in comparison to human artifacts.
5. Therefore,
there probably is a powerful and vastly intelligent designer who created the
universe. [31]
In
scientific field the design has never been considered to be a spontaneous,
rather it always implies a designer, and for the grater design it requires the
greater designer. Thus, the scientific assumption leads to the requirement of
and designer, from outside the universe, for the existence of universe, which
must be a supernatural designer. In the
teleological argument, the principle of intelligent design has been applied to
the whole universe. Therefore, if the design requires a designer, then the
universe must have been designed.
When
we look at the life form in the history of earth, it is very clear that it has
been highly complex. DNA is one of the best example of high complex, and the
single strand of DNA measure up to one volume of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. And next is brain: the human
brain is capable of ten billion gigabytes of capacity. When we look other
things, apart from the living thing on the earth, even the universe seems well
designed for life. But the life on the
earth is very hard to explain, because there are many things, such as mass
density of the universe to earthquake which makes the life on the earth
possible. Such a fine tuned universe could never be the result of random
chance, but only an imagination. Even in the present time, the argument from
the design has been considered and argued over by many atheist.in demonstrating
the existence of god; the proponents of teleological argument have exposed the
lacks of evolution. The Intelligent Design movement holds the information theory
of life and explains the improbability of chance to explain the complexity of
life. Even Darwin had recognized that the complexity of the single celled
bacteria is so complex. The fact about the complexity of life explains the need
of the designer, which, in other words, it points to a creator.[32]
5. MORAL ARGUMENT
5. MORAL ARGUMENT
5.1. Definition of
Moral Argument
The argument from morality is
one of the well-known arguments for the existence
of God. Moral order the basic upon which the Arguments from morality are built.
This moral argument insists the moral order to be the essential for the
universe to exist.[33]
Moral argument begins with the assumption that everyone is able to identify
some moral code in the human realm, which is the knowledge about how something
is wrong, and something is wright.
It is the human nature to argue over right and wrong,
because we think that there is a higher law that everyone is aware of. So now,
the concept of wright and wrong imply a higher standard on basis of which everyone
is able to say someone or something is right and wrong. This moral law is not
something that we can confirm to the humanity; it obviously transcends humanity
and implies a universal lawgiver.[34]The inference of this argument affirms fact that it is
impossible to have the things such as morality without god. Because, if there
is no god then everything is permissible, and there is none to whom we need to
give an account for what we do. But we have moral laws, and not everything is
permissible, therefore, god exists.[35]
5.2. History of Moral Argument
When
we trace back the origin of the moral argument, we don’t exactly find the
beginning of it, but rather we find an argument which resembles the moral
argument for the existence of god. There are five ways of arguments held by
Thomas Aquinas for the existence of god, and one among those five talks about
the value. In that argument, Aquinas
claims that there are beings that possess such qualities as good, noble, and
true, in which we find gradations. by asserting the term gradation, Aquinas means that there are some absolute
standard according to which we grade the things good, best and noble, nobler. According
to Aquinas, this absolute standard just cannot be an ideal or hypothetical, and
thus this gradation should be some being which has this quality to a highest
level. Therefore, Aquinas concludes that the being which gives the absolute
standard can only be the cause and explanation, and such a being must be god.
After Aquinas, this argument has never been defended and reformulated[36]
the most influential versions of the moral argument can be found in the time of
German philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant,
the German philosopher, has formed his
argument from morality from practical reason, because he believed that the
theoretical arguments are not successful in defending the existence of god. It was
well understood by Kant that the main thing that the whole humanity is
running after, which are namely, perfect happiness and virtue.[37]
According
to Kant all the rational beings are able to will a good world in which people
are both morally good and happy, and in which moral condition is the basic for
happen. Kant argues that no moral being
is able to will such an end without believing that the moral action can lead to
happiness. Thus, Kant concludes that this belief of humanity about happiness
through the virtue guaranties a being which is capable of providing the
happiness, and the ultimate responsible for the character of natural world. The influence of Kant’s argument remained
until the middle of twentieth century. By using the moral argument, John Henry
Newman, in nineteenth century, developed a new argument called an argument from
conscience. in his new argument, Newman argues that objective moral truth exist
because people are always drive to act morally. Therefore, he thinks that it is
conscience, in which it is given, and someone must exist, who is standard of
moral act, to give in the conscience.[38]The
influence of Kant’s moral argument can be found in works of W. R. Sorley,
Hastings Rashdall, and A. E. Taylor.[39]
Through
the book mere Christianity we could know that even C.S.lewis was a proponent of
moral argument. In the book mere Christianity Lewis argues that conscience of
every man reveals a moral law, and which could be possible without a law giver.[40]
In the modern time philosophy we find a revival of divine command metaethical
theories. These new versions of moral argument can be found in the thinkers
like Robert Adams, John Hare, and C. Stephen Evans. Still there are some moral arguments
which are independent, like, the divine command theory developed by Angus
Ritchie and Mark Linville.[41]
5.3. Types of Moral
Argument
Moral
arguments for the existence of god take either the existence of morality or
some specific feature of morality to imply that there is a law giver which must
exist outside of the universe. It is the existence of god which makes the sense
any morality that man is aware of. When we trace the history we find several
different forms of moral argument.
The
first is a formal moral argument,
in which the divine origin is affirmed by the normativity and authority of
morality. Here it is explained in two ways. First, it is a prescriptive, which
means to tell us what to do. Second, it is authoritative, which means that
there is something under which we need be. These both prescription and
authority cannot be from human institution; rather they must have been from
supernatural source.
Second,
it is a perfectionist moral
argument, according to which the concept of high standard of morality remain senseless
without the existence of god. The perfectionist moral argument is setting up a problem even before they
begin to argue about anything.
They
point out three truths about morality which are basically inconsistent, and
those problems are as follows: we ought to be perfect; ought to imply can; we
cannot be prefect. And now the question comes that how to solve this contradiction? But the perfectionist argues that the
contradiction must serve someone as an excuse to fall short of the moral
standard and invoke God. According to this argument, if God exists then he will
help us to bridge the gap between what we are able to do by our own strength
and what morality requires of us.
Third,
it is Kant’s moral argument, which begins by stating that we have good reason
to behave morally and it makes sense only if there is a god that holds justice
in the afterlife.
Kant
begins his moral argument with the premise that moral behaviour is rational and
we have good reason to behave morally. The first premise makes sense only with
conformation that the beings have interest to behave rationally. When we look
around the world it is moral behaviour which makes more profit than the immoral
behaviour. Our moral behaviour in this world makes sense only if we are able to
be rational about a life after this world.[42]
5.4. Kant’s Moral
Argument
Kant’s
moral argument is known to be the best moral argument for the existence of god.
Kant did not build his argument on the nature of morality or on the morality’s
perfectionism, but rather he built it on moral behaviour. In his book critique
of pure reason, Kant states that any argument built on reason alone will not stand
successfully. Despite the failure of all these argument from reason, Kant
argues that morality requires the existence of god, at least the assumption of God,
due to the practical reason. Kant was not interested in proving the existence
of God; rather he wanted to demonstrate that the moral thought requires the
existence of God. In proving this claim, Kant brought
the necessity of human to bring about the moral virtue and happiness. Kant
argued that it is possible to achieve the moral virtue and happiness but he
accepted that fact that it is not with in the human capacity. Therefore, he
concluded that there must be some high power which can create an afterlife
where the virtue can be rewarded by happiness.[43]
Kant’s Moral
Argument:
1. Moral behaviour is rational.
2. Morality behaviour is only rational if justice
will be done
3. Justice
will only be done if God exists.
4. Therefore:
God exists.
Kant’s argument is
consisting of three premises.
The
first premise of the argument is moral behaviour. Kant held the view that since
we don’t do anything without reason, we all have good reason to be moral, and
it is a fundamental principle of morality. It doesn’t make sense when we say
that I love some body, but I have no reason to do it. So, there is always being
moral reason behind everything that we do. if there is a moral reason for doing
something and not to do other thing, then we ought to do what we need to do. Therefore
moral behaviour is always rational.
The second premise holds that the moral
behaviour is rational only if justice will be done.
The
moral behaviour is no longer rational if the assurance of reward is not
guaranteed. On the second premise, Kant point that if sin can be more
profitable than the righteousness, then the sinful behaviour must be rational. But
we have a reason to moral only if there is reward for morality. If there is no
comeback for morality then it is rational for us to do which benefits us most.
The third premise holds
that the justice will only be done if god exists. In this premise, Kant makes
it clear that the very life that we live in not fair, and the justice is not
show to anyone for what they have done. Very
often people don’t get what they deserve; like some cheats prosper, bad things
happen to good people. According to Kant this is not the life all there is.
Kant says that if this
life is all there is, then the moral behaviour is not rational and we have no
reason to be good, because the justice is not done. Since we all do morally good and have a reason
to do good, then this life is not all there is; there must be something more. Finally
Kant concludes that the rationality of morality can be explained only if there
is a view like the Christian view of afterlife.[44]
6.
CONCLUSION
There
have been plenty of arguments for the existence of god, but not all the
argument could be profound as some few, which we have discussed above. When we
consider these profound arguments, it has made some impact in the history. In
other words, it has given some sense to the people that what Christians believe
is reasonable. If we would make a statement that these arguments can make
anyone to believe in god, then the claim would be utterly wrong. Because every
man has reason to believe and not to believe in god, and for every man the
evidence are not the same. So there is no such argument through all the
nonbeliever could come in faith. These arguments are working on the surface
level but not in deep. Therefore the evidence for the people has to be found
form their heart, and that can happen only with the help of the Holy Spirit.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ex-Apologist. “Summary
Of William Lane Craig’s Kalam Cosmological Argument”.http://exapologist.blogspot.in/2008/10/summary-of-william-lane-craigs-kalam.html(accessed
on 19-8-14)
Existence of God. “Moral
Argument”. http://www.existence-of-god.com/moral-argument.html(accessed on
20-8-14)
Got Question. “Teleological
Argument”. http://www.gotquestions.org/teleological-argument.html(accessed on
21-8-14)
Internet Encyclopaedia of
Philosophy. “Anselm: Ontological Argument For The Existence Of God”.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/(accessed on 20-8-14)
Philosophy of Religion.
“The Kalam Cosmological Argument”.http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-cosmological-argument/the-kalam-cosmological-argument/.(accessed
on 17-8-14)
Reason for God. “The
Cosmological Argument”.http://www.reasonsforgod.org/the-best-reasons/cosmological-argument/
Stanford Encyclopaedia
of Philosophy. “Cosmological Argument”.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/.(accessed on18-8-14)
Wikipedia.
“Cosmological Argument”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument.(accessed on18-8-14)
[1] Wikipedia, “Cosmological
Argument”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument.(accessed
on18-8-14)
[2] Stanford Encyclopaedia of
Philosophy, “Cosmological Argument”.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/.(accessed on18-8-14)
[3] Stanford Encyclopaedia of
Philosophy, “Cosmological Argument”.
[4]Stanford Encyclopaedia of
Philosophy, “Cosmological Argument”.
[5] Reason For God, “The
Cosmological
Argument”.http://www.reasonsforgod.org/the-best-reasons/cosmological-argument/
[6] Stanford Encyclopaedia of
Philosophy, “Cosmological Argument”.
[7]
Philosophy Of Religion, “The Kalam Cosmological Argument”.http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-cosmological-argument/the-kalam-cosmological-argument/.(accessed
on 17-8-14)
[8] Ex-Apologist, “Summary Of
William Lane Craig’s Kalam Cosmological’.
Argument.http://exapologist.blogspot.in/2008/10/summary-of-william-lane-craigs-kalam.html
[9]Wikipedia, ‘Ontological
Argument’. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument (accessed on 20-8-14)
[10]Stanford Encyclopaedia of
Philosophy, “Ontological Argument”.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/. (accessed 20-8-14).
[11] Philosophy of Religion,
“Ontological Argument”.
[12] Stanford Encyclopaedia of
Philosophy, “Ontological Argument”.
[13] Philosophy of Religion,
“Ontological Argument.”
[14] Stanford Encyclopaedia of
Philosophy, “Ontological Argument.”.
[15] Philosophy of Religion,
“Ontological Argument.”.
[16] Wikipedia, “Ontological
Argument”.
[17] Stanford Encyclopaedia of
Philosophy, “Ontological Argument”.
[18] Stanford Encyclopaedia of
Philosophy, “Ontological Argument.”
[19] Wikipedia, “Ontological
Argument”.
[20] Internet Encyclopaedia of
Philosophy, “Anselm: Ontological Argument For The Existence Of God”.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/(accessed on 20-8-14)
[21] Wikipedia, “Ontological
Argument”.
[22] Wikipedia, “Ontological
Argument”.
[23] Internet Encyclopaedia of
Philosophy, “Anselm: Ontological Argument For The Existence Of God”.
[27] Wikipedia, “Teleological
argument”.
[29] Wikipedia, “Teleological
argument”.
[31] Matt Slick, “The Teleological
Argument”. http://carm.org/teleological-argument
[32] Got Question, “Teleological
Argument”. http://www.gotquestions.org/teleological-argument.html(accessed on
21-8-14)
[33] Wikipedia, “Moral Argument”.
[34] Got Questions, “Moral Argument”.
[35] Existence of God, “Moral
Argument.” http://www.existence-of-god.com/moral-argument.html(20-8-14)
[36] Stanford Encyclopaedia of
Philosophy, “argument from morality.”
[37] Wikipedia, “Moral Argument”.
[38] Wikipedia, “Argument from
morality.”
[39] Stanford Encyclopaedia of
Philosophy, “argument from morality.”
[40] Wikipedia, “Moral Argument”.
[41] Stanford Encyclopaedia of
Philosophy, “argument from morality.”
[42] Philosophy of Religion, “moral
argument.”
[43] Wikipedia, “Argument from
morality”.
No comments:
Post a Comment