Leibniz’s is also a theist. Therefore, since there is

Leibniz’s cosmological arguments debates
that the individual things, or the entire collection of series of things, needs
some explanation for its existence. This is known as the Principle of Sufficient
Reason. The basic idea behind the principle can be described with an example on
how we could take any feature of the world and just accept the way it is
because there must be some sort of explanation behind it. Leibniz’s concludes
that the most applicable explanation for the creation of the cosmos is with the
existence of a necessary being whose non-existence is an impossibility and the
necessary being is referred to the existence of God. However, the Cosmological
argument is more than that, it argues from some grand cosmological feature which
could not even in principle have a material or efficient cause which could be
discovered by science.

One of the most famous problems that is
faced by the cosmological argument is the Taxicab
Problem. The name of this problem is originated from a quip of Schopenhauer
where he states that the Principle of Sufficient Reason is like a taxicab
because once used, it is sent away. A famous formulation is ‘If God is the
cause of the universe, what is the cause of God?’ (Pruss, 2006). A typical explanation would argue that the case of the First Cause
would not be affected because the Principle of Sufficient Reason is applied. Furthermore,
since the first cause of the cosmological arguments is based on the existence
of a necessary being and The Principle of Sufficient Reasons as defended
applies only to contingent states of affairs, the problem of applying the
Principle of Sufficient Reasons to the existence of the necessary being does
not arise. And even if one defended the Principle of Sufficient Reasons explained
by the necessity of its existence, or that there is a sound ontological
argument which we simply have not been smart enough to find yet.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

 The Gap Problem has yet
to see as much progress in finding the logic of the cosmological argument
because it is merely sociological.  The typical philosophical atheist or
agnostic not only doesn’t believe in God, but also doesn’t believe in a
necessarily existing first cause while the standard philosophers who
accepts a necessarily existing first cause is also a theist.  Therefore, since
there is a lack of audience on arguments that the necessary existing first
cause is God, it makes much more sense to clarify on the argument of the First
Cause, and then only proceed with the argument that there is such necessary
being such as God.

            Probably the most important part of the Gap
Problem is the question whether the first cause is an agent.  After all,
if the First Causes remained being all non-agentive necessarily existing constituents
that arbitrarily spits out islands universes (the big bang theory), then the
conclusion of the cosmological argument would be incompatible with theism.

Other than that, there is the
question of the other attributes that God has been traditionally been described
to be omniscience, omnipotence, transcendence and, crucially, perfect
goodness.  At the same time, it is quite rational for a defender of the
cosmological argument to stop deriving the attributes of the First Cause at
some point, and say that the other attributes are to be accepted by a
combination of faith and data from other arguments for the existence of
God.  In any case, are is the Christian cosmological arguer who claims to
be able to show that the First Cause is a Trinity, and indeed Catholic theologians
such as Thomas Aquinas may say this is good, since that God is a Trinity is a
matter of faith.  Nor does the inability to show by reasoned arguments
that the First Cause has some attribute provide much of an argument against the claim that the First
Cause has that attribute.

           
There are two universal methodologies for connecting the gap between the First
Cause and God which is through inductive arguments and metaphysical arguments. 
Inductive arguments may claim that supposing that the First Cause demonstrates
some attribute is the best explanation of some feature of the First Cause’s
effects, and in doing so the arguments may reinterpret the considerations of
design arguments. On the other hand, metaphysical arguments emphasize that a
First Cause must have some special metaphysical feature, such as being simple
or being pure actuality, from which a number of other attributes follows.

Therefore, with The Gap Problem trying to prove that the First Cause’s activity
must in some way explain everything contingent. There is an
obvious response to this which overruled this objection. Leibniz’s argument does
not say that everything needs an explanation, but only that all contingent
things needs an explanation. So the principle of sufficient reason does not
imply that God needs an explanation, since God is a necessary being.

Conclusively, the Cosmological arguments are able
to overcome the Taxicab problem and The Gap Problem by applying Principle of
Sufficient Reason. This ultimate conclusion of the universe and existence
inescapably leads to the existence of God.  If an internally consistent model of God can
be made, meaning a being that is omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence: God
not only must exist, he already does and always has for anything that can be
fully comprehended and defined through information is totally equivalent to
anything that we know to exist. Now, what causes a model to be processed
compared to one that can simply exist? The answer is something capable of
comprehending that process and running the math through each step. We see this
in computers all the time. The human mind is also capable of comprehending
mathematical processes and finding the conclusions, but we are incapable of
running a continual process that can continue forever but a computer could if
it could stay on forever. We and everything around us is a mathematical process
(a model of information) currently being processed and this is how we are
experiencing time, otherwise we and every moment of our existence would simply
just exist with unrealized potential. What is processing us and everything
around us? God of course. What’s processing God, himself. Truth and information
doesn’t need a computer to exist, they simply do and any potential anything
exists in every moment of time in one, including God. 

x

Hi!
I'm Brent!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out