could put it into our minds, therefore coming to the conclusion that there must be a being of absolute perfection. Descartes calls this being God.The idea states that for all effects there is a cause. Hume said that even though the cause preceded the effect, there is no proof that the cause is responsible for the effect’s occurrence. The cosmological argument follows the same logic as the causal argument of Descartes. The cosmological argument states that all physical things, even mountains, boulders, and rivers, come into being and go out of existence, no matter how low they last. Therefore, since time is infinite, there must be some time at which none of these things existed. But if there were nothing at that point in time, how could there be anything at all now, since nothing cannot cause anything? Thus there must always have been at least one necessary thing that is eternal, which is God. (Proofs For and Against the Existence of God) Hume emphasized that there is no legitimate way we can infer the properties of God as the creator of the word form the qualities of His creation. For instance – Hume questions how we can be sure that the world was not created by a team: or that this is not one of many attempts at creations, the first few having been botched, or on the other hand, that our world is not a poor first attempt "of an infant deity who afterwards abandoned it, ashamed of his lame performance." (Proofs For and Against the Existence of God)The Cosmological Argument (especially as developed by Thomas Aquinas): This argument is based on observation of the universe (the cosmos); as such, it is an a posteriori kind of argument. It claims that if every individual thing or event has a cause for why it is as it is and why it changes as it does. Each thing or event depends on (or is "contingent" on) some other thing or event to account for why it exists or happens. Without a cause, nothing would exist or be intelligible. I...
