Abstract

This thesis compares the descriptions of God that come from religion and from the Cosmological Argument. The Cosmological Argument has long been held to support the traditional concept of God held by religious adherents. However, one finds that upon closer examination these two descriptions of God may not be as compatible as previously thought. So, I examine if there is reason for concern, and if so, how one is to reconcile these differences. Chapter I will quickly introduce the Cosmological Argument. Chapter II will look at the Cosmological Argument's viability. This look at viability is in order because if the argument does not withstand criticism, then this discrepancy between the descriptions of God is not an issue. This problem is only significant if the Cosmological Argument is viable. So, the second chapter will examine the viability. This chapter answers some of the most common attacks on the argument (issues about the Principle of Sufficient Reason committing the fallacy of composition, and issues about infinite and circular regresses). After showing the argument is viable, the third chapter will consider the attributes of the being that result from the Cosmological Argument. By fleshing out the being's attributes, one is then able to compare this being to the God of Religion. In the fourth chapter, I examine the God of Religion, and compare the two descriptions. In doing this, I will find that they contradict over the notion of God as Personal in religion and a being, which has aseity in the Cosmological Argument. With this contradiction in mind, I will then offer six possible solutions to this conflict. In the conclusion (Chapter V), I accept the sixth solution, which suggests a synthesis for reconciling the two descriptions. With this solution, I will discuss how the reconciliation works, and I will offer a conception of God that comes from that solution