Write a paper in which you compare and contrast two types of cosmological arguments for the existence of God.
Select a pair of arguments from the following list:
The Kalām Cosmological Argument AND one of Leibniz’ PSR arguments
The Kalām Cosmological Argument AND Aquinas’ First Way
The Kalām Cosmological Argument AND Aquinas’ Second Way
One Leibniz’s arguments AND Aquinas’ Second Way
In your paper, you must compare and contrast the arguments. A good paper should do the following:
Introduction: Briefly summarize each argument.
In your summaries, you should…
Identify the explanandum in each argument (the feature of the world that each argument holds can only be explained by God.
State the reason why each feature requires explanation according to the authors.
State the main steps of each argument–you can do so in a numbered list or in paragraph form.
Body: Compare and contrast the arguments.
To help you focus on areas of importance, answer three of the following questions:
How are the initial features to be explained different?
Do the two arguments deal with the same kind of infinite regress? If not, what is the difference?
Do they share any common assumptions or could one argument work and the other argument not work?
Do they rely on different kinds or concepts of causality and/or explanation?
For each argument, what must be true of God (as ultimate explanation)? Do the arguments necessarily imply different ideas of God?
Conclusion: Brief evaluation of the arguments
Based on the comparison and contrast, evaluate the arguments.
If you think both arguments work…explain what you find strongest and most convincing about each one.
If you think only one of the two arguments works…explain why you think one works and why the other fails.
If you think both arguments fail…explain why you do not think either successfully prove that God exists.
Suggestions:
To give the strongest evaluation of the arguments, you should address specific aspects of the arguments. If you think, for example, that Craig’s argument does not work, state which premise(s) you think are false and why. If you are convinced by, for example, Leibniz’ arguments, refer to the particular aspects of the argument which you find most important and provide an account of why the premises are true. Avoid generalized statements about the conclusions which don’t address the arguments themselves! That is, do not do the following:
“Neither argument works because God is simply a myth people tell themselves.”
“Both arguments work because they show that there is God! And that agrees with what I believe.”
“I feel that these arguments are very logical and make sense to me.”
“I think these arguments are just confusing. It’s not possible to prove that God exists.”
In particular, avoid the following:
Appeals to Scripture or to your own personal religious beliefs as a reason why an argument works
Appeals to your own personal lack of religious belief as a reason why an argument fails to convince you
Vague appeals to “science,” “reason,” or “revelation.” Whether an argument fits with or conflicts with “science” or “reason” or “revelation” requires a specific evaluation of the premises of the arguments themselves. Unless an argument contains a logical fallacy, all of them are “rational”. The question is whether the premises are true.
If you feel unsure about any part of the paper, I am happy to talk with you during office hours!
Length: Minimum of 500 words.
Formatting Requirements: Double spaced, 12 point font, Times New Roman, 1 inch margins
Citations: Chicago Manuel of Style. You may use footnotes or parenthetical citations .
Submission Details: Your paper must be formatted as a PDF or Microsoft Word document (.doc or .docx).
