>>The ontological argument and the cosmological argument are two entirely distinct types of argument<<
Ultimately, the cosmological argument depends upon the ontological argument for its validity. The cosmological argument demands a necessary cause for the causal chain. It departs from the experience of the world's contingency. That is to say, it departs from the finite. From the contingency of the existent, we reach, through a chain of causes, an absolutely necessary cause. But in this last step, we misapply the causal law, going beyond the nature of possible Knowledge. The cosmological argument relies on experience to infer the existence of a necessary Being in general. However, experience won't inform the properties of such a being. When it comes to this point, the cosmological argument conveniently finds its way out of experience, relying on reason to inform us the predicates such being should possess. Those would be the properties of the real being, the one whose essence existence belongs. But I can only Know existence belongs to its essence through the ontological argument, since that argument has already been refuted by Luther and Kant, the cosmological argument also lacks solid ground. |
