There are many versions of the argument. Saint Thomas Aquinas (in the thirteenth century) and Samuel Clarke (in the eighteenth century) are the dominant contributors in the development of the argument. Though their arguments differ slightly, both men based their arguments on the observation that the world is rooted on causal relationships. Their arguments can be summarized into one argument as follows: Either the world is made up of things that depend on others for their existence (dependent beings), or things that are self-existent (independent beings). Not everything can depend on another for its existence. Therefore, there is some self-existing bein

Premise 2 states that everything cannot be a dependent being. William Rowe does an excellent job of explaining why if PSR is true, then premise 2 is also true. He says let's suppose that there has never been a self-existing being, but only an infinite series of dependent beings. In this series, every being has an explanation, because it is explained by the being that came before it and that caused its existence, but what caused the series? His version says that the fact that the series exists requires it to have an explanation, but if there have only been existed dependent beings, the series will not have an explanation. It won't do to say that Xs [where Xs equal dependent beings] have always been producing other Xs -- we can't explain why there have always been Xs by saying that there have always been Xs. Thus, a self-existing being is the only explanation for the series, and premise 2 is true. Thus, because premise 1 shows that there are only two kinds of beings (dependent or self-existent), and everything cannot be a dependent being, it follows that there must be some self-existing being. So far, it seems that the Cosmological Argument indeed proves the existence of a self-existing being. Both of its premises have been shown to be true, so it passes the premise test, and also, the conclusion follows from the premises, it passes the inference test.

Something has been overlooked though the only way that premise 1 and 2 can be true is if the Principle of Sufficien

Some topics in this essay:
PSR PSR, Cosmological Argument, Reason PSR, Sufficient Reason, William Rowe, Samuel Clarke, Xs Xs, psr true, cosmological argument, Principle Sufficient, principle sufficient reason, sufficient reason, principle sufficient, Argument God‘s, premise 1, Thomas Aquinas, true premise, reason true, dependent self-existent, evidence prove, sufficient reason true, 2 true, prove principle sufficient, dependent series explanation, psr true premise,