Abstract
JUSTIFYING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD ON A WEAKER PRINCIPLE
In the history of thought, the majority of discussions on the existence of God are gathered under the umbrella of cosmological argument. The cosmological argument can be considered “a family of arguments” because it has different versions, but it is clear that the basis of all interpretations is the causality and principle of sufficient reason, directly or indirectly. Today, some views consider that the arguments can rebuilt on this foundation from different perspectives and aim to put forward stronger explanations about the existence of God. In this way, they aim to increase the convincing power of the cosmological argument. These views can be considered as arguments with reasonable aspects since they are based on rational justifications in some respects. From another perspective, these views are so weak that they can be seen as explanations with no convincing power. This Article examines Joshua L. Rasmussen’s reconsidered cosmological argument and its consistency, rationality, convincing power and validity.
Keywords
Causation, Weaker Principle of Sufficient Reason, Contingency
