(1) Something exists
(2) Whatever exists exists either contingently or necessarily
(3) The existence of something which exists continengtly must ultimately be grounded in the existence of a something which exists necessarily
(4) ... derive the attributes of the necessary being here ...
(5) Such a being is appropriately called God.
(6) Therefore God exists.
This version understands Necessity and contingency largely in causal terms. The necessity that creates the universe must be understood as eternal and uncaused for two reasons: (1) The impossibility of ICR, there has to be a final cause or nothing would ever come to be, (2) empirically we know the universe is not eternal. See the supporting material. Atheists will often argue that this kind of argument doesn't prove that God is the necessity that causes the universe. but being necessary and creator and primary7 cause makes it the sources of all thins we can rationally construe that as God.
Version B: Clearke's CA
Clarke’s “Argument from Contingency”:
1. Every being that exists is either contingent or necessary.
2. Not every being can be contingent.
3. Therefore, there exists a necessary being on which the contingent beings depend.
4. A necessary being, on which all contingent things depend, is what we mean by “God”.
5. Therefore, God exists.
Do Contingencies Require Necessities.,*NEW*
Universe is contingent
No Infinite Causal Regression
Universe is Finite, Atheist Philosopher proves*NEW!*
Quantum Particles Do Not Prove Something from Nothing*NEW!*
Debunking Krause, Universe from Nothing. *NEW!*
More on Clarke's Cosmological Argument
Argument from Eternal Necessary Being
(3)Argument from Primary Cosmological Status
re-worded version of my old cosmological argument
from Doxa list. It's an attempt to get away from the
language of necessity/contingency.
(4)Robert Koons Inductive CA
This inductive version by Dr. Koons of univ. Texas is designed to emphasize the question begging of atheist argument.
"However, there are several weaknesses in the Cosmological Argument, which make it unable to “prove” the existence of God by itself. One is that if it is not possible for a person to conceive of an infinite process of causation, without a beginning, how is it possible for the same individual to conceive of a being that is infinite and without beginning? The idea that causation is not an infinite process is being introduced as a given, without any reasons to show why it could not exist."
[Philip A Pecorino philosophy of religion, web sight--accessed 7/27/16]
Pecorino teaches Queensbourgh CC, CUNY
Answer: It is precisely because God is not a series of causes that we can imagine it, a series of infinite causes would not work because each is a contingency but God is the necessary basis of all thiat is. God is not a clump of matter being worked on by physical laws as is the universe. God is the things that makes the laws.