Rowe's Cosmological Argument - Essay Example

The Principle of Sufficient Reason follows the idea that everything must have an explanation. In the arguments for God’s existence, this principle is commonly used to explain the causal or creative power. There are normally four unique forms of the Principle of Sufficient Reason. The first one is known as the Principle of Sufficient Reason of Becoming is the first form and it states that if an object’s new form appears, there must have been another similar state. The Principle of Sufficient Reason of knowing states that for judgment to express some knowledge, there must be sufficient ground which serves as a basis for the knowledge.

This quality gives judgment a level of being true a fact that can be used on the judgment when it is being used for something else. The principle of Sufficient Reason of Acting states that all human decisions are results of an object that has the power to determine the will of humans by acting as the motive for such a will. Just like the Principle of Sufficient Reason, the cosmological argument maintains that the existence of the universe had to come from somewhere (Sullivan 330). In other words, there must have been an original or first cause that made it possible for the universe to exist.

The cosmological point of view highlights the relevance of the first cause, arguing that the first cause does exist and is most certainly recognizable as God. In this regard, the cosmological world view about the existence of God may require the Principle of Sufficient Reason to put more emphasis on the fact that the first cause, or God, has an explanation. . In this regard, the cosmological world view about the existence of God may require the Principle of Sufficient Reason to put more emphasis on the fact that the first cause, or God, has an explanation.

Rowe in his explanation of the Cosmological Argument, identifies two parts of the Principle of Sufficient Reason: the first part requires that an explanation is necessary for the existence of everything, which means that one must be able to identify the cause of any being that is in existence. The second part of the principle requires that for any positive fact, there has to be an explanation. Rowe argues that there are three ways of explaining the existence of a being: explanation by itself, by another being or by nothing (Rowe 18).

This means that the existence of all beings, and to a great extension, the whole universe, is fully accounted for. I completely agree with the views of the Cosmological Argument presented by Rowe. There has to be an explanation or a reason why the universe exists or why things are the way they are. For the universe to come to existence, it must have come from somewhere. The cause of this existence is definitely a Supreme Being, or God. I disagree with those who oppose the Cosmological Argument saying that the existence of the universe does not necessarily mean that there is a Supreme Being.

I also support Leigniz’s Principle of Sufficient Reason which implies the same thing implied by the Cosmological Argument: that there must be sufficient reason for everything that exists or happens and this sufficient reason is definitely God. Many people normally ask then if this is the case, is there a sufficient reason for God to exist (Rowe and Trakakis 3). In my opinion, God’s existence