These are mostly toy examples.
Plato and Aristotledepicted here in Raphael 's The School of Athensboth developed first cause arguments.
This required a "self-originated motion" to set it in motion and to maintain it. In TimaeusPlato posited a "demiurge" of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the creator of the Cosmos. Aristotle argued the atomist's assertion of a non-eternal universe would require a first uncaused cause — in his terminology, an efficient first cause — an idea he considered a non-sensical flaw in the reasoning of the atomists.
Like Plato, Aristotle believed in an eternal cosmos with no beginning and no end which in turn follows Parmenides ' famous statement that " nothing comes from nothing ".
In what he called "first philosophy" or metaphysics, Aristotle did intend a theological correspondence between the prime mover and deity presumably Zeus ; functionally, however, he provided an explanation for the apparent motion of the " fixed stars " now understood as the daily rotation of the Earth.
According to his theses, immaterial unmoved movers are eternal unchangeable beings that constantly think about thinking, but being immaterial, they're incapable of interacting with the cosmos and have no knowledge of what transpires therein.
From an "aspiration or desire",  the celestial spheresimitate that purely intellectual activity as best they can, by uniform circular motion. The unmoved movers inspiring the planetary spheres are no different in kind from the prime mover, they merely suffer a dependency of relation to the prime mover.
Correspondingly, the motions of the planets are subordinate to the motion inspired by the prime mover in the sphere of fixed stars. Aristotle's natural theology admitted no creation or capriciousness from the immortal pantheonbut maintained a defense against dangerous charges of impiety.
His disciple Proclus stated "The One is God". He argued that the fact of existence could not be inferred from or accounted for by the essence of existing things, and that form and matter by themselves could not originate and interact with the movement of the Universe or the progressive actualization of existing things.
Thus, he reasoned that existence must be due to an agent cause that necessitates, imparts, gives, or adds existence to an essence. To do so, the cause must coexist with its effect and be an existing thing.
In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known neither is it, indeed, possible in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible.
Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect.
Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause.
But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
Versions of the argument[ edit ] Argument from contingency[ edit ] In the scholastic era, Aquinas formulated the "argument from contingency ", following Aristotle in claiming that there must be something to explain why the Universe exists.
It is a form of argument from universal causation.
Aquinas observed that, in nature, there were things with contingent existences. Since it is possible for such things not to exist, there must be some time at which these things did not in fact exist. Thus, according to Aquinas, there must have been a time when nothing existed.
If this is so, there would exist nothing that could bring anything into existence. Contingent beings, therefore, are insufficient to account for the existence of contingent beings: The German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz made a similar argument with his principle of sufficient reason in The teleological or physico-theological argument, also known as the argument from design, or intelligent design argument is an argument for the existence of God or, more generally, for an intelligent creator based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world.
Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins". Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical.
Question: "What is the Teleological argument for the existence of God?" Answer: The word teleology comes from telos, which means "purpose" or "goal."The idea is that it takes a "purposer" to have purpose, and so, where we see things obviously intended for a purpose, we can assume that those things were made for a reason.
Explain the Teleological Argument Put Forward by Aquinas and Paley “Some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end: and this being we call God” Aquinas, Summa Theologica - Explain the Teleological Argument Put Forward by Aquinas and Paley introduction.
The teleological argument is the design argument for the existence of God. The simplest and easiest to understand of all the arguments ever offered by believers is the Argument from Design. The argument is remarkably simple. For Hindi Version go to: भारत का स्वरुप कैसा हो?
सेकुलर या हिन्दू? “Hinduism, which is the most skeptical and the most believing of all, the most skeptical because it has questioned and experimented the most, the most believing because it has the deepest experience and the most varied and positive spiritual knowledge, that.