Many philosophers and theologians have provided varying arguments for the existence of God. These arguments are either a priori, understood independent of worldly experience and observation (Ontological Argument), or a posteriori, dependent on experience and based on observations of how the world is (Cosmological and Teleological Arguments). This paper will focus on the Cosmological Argument, and show that its underlying principle, the Principle of Sufficient Reason, fails to establish it as a sound argument for the existence of God. To accomplish this, I will, first, define the Cosmological Argument and the Principle of Sufficient Reason; then explain the argument, and how it is based on the Principle of Sufficient Reason; and finally, show that there is not enough evidence to prove that the Principle of Sufficient Reason is true, which in turn leads to the flaw in the Cosmological Argument.First, what are the Cosmological Argument and the Principle of Sufficient Reason? 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 (Rowe 21). 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:(1) Either the world is made up of things that dependon others for their existence (dependent beings), or things that are self-existent (independent beings).(2) Not everything can depend on another for its existence.(3) Therefore, there is some self-existing being, and that being is God.The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) maintains that "there must be an explanation (a) of the existence of any being, and (b) of any positive fact whatever" (Rowe 24). Thus, there is an explanation for why I exist (PSRa), and also an explanation for every feature of ...
