Actually it isn't. Or at least, not everybody is convinced. It has several large loopholes; for example:* The cosmological argument assumes that everything must have a cause; therefore, it says, the Universe must have a cause. But if you assume that there is a God who created the Universe, this God (applying the same argument) must itself have a cause.
* Even if we assume that something created the Universe, the cosmological argument doesn't allow you to make any conclusions about the identity of the creator... or creators. There might be a single God, many gods, or we might (for example) be part of a computer simulation on a "higher level"; and the "cause" might not even be an intelligent being, but random chance.
As far as I understand, the Big Bang theory is not a challenge to the cosmological argument at all. The cosmological argument states that there must have been a beginning to the universe, which is confirmed by modern science. The cosmological argument further is often held to indicate that that beginning must have been an intelligent agent, which is neither confirmed nor denied by cosmology.
According to the cosmological principle, from ANY point it would seem as if we are at the center of the Universe.According to the cosmological principle, from ANY point it would seem as if we are at the center of the Universe.According to the cosmological principle, from ANY point it would seem as if we are at the center of the Universe.According to the cosmological principle, from ANY point it would seem as if we are at the center of the Universe.
me
The big bang theory is a cosmological model. Is this really the question you are trying to ask?
An intergalatic, cosmological hernia!
The Kalām Cosmological Argument was created in 1979.
The Kalām Cosmological Argument has 216 pages.
As far as I understand, the Big Bang theory is not a challenge to the cosmological argument at all. The cosmological argument states that there must have been a beginning to the universe, which is confirmed by modern science. The cosmological argument further is often held to indicate that that beginning must have been an intelligent agent, which is neither confirmed nor denied by cosmology.
The design argument, which posits that the complexity and order in the universe suggest a designer, is convincing to some people because it provides a logical explanation for the existence of complex systems. However, others find it unconvincing due to alternative explanations, like natural selection, and the lack of direct evidence for a designer. Ultimately, the persuasiveness of the design argument can vary depending on an individual's perspective and beliefs.
The kalam cosmological argument is considered by many philosophers and theologians to be both valid and sound. The argument uses logic to try to demonstrate that the universe had a cause and that this cause must be a transcendent, uncaused, and timeless being, which many identify as God. However, there is ongoing debate and criticism within the philosophical community about its premises and implications.
Does this list make his argument more or less convincing? Why?
No.
An argument.
Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas. For additional supporters of this argument, check the corresponding Wikipedia article.
Macaulay's argument in favor of the Reform Bill of 1832 that were really convincing was his argument in favour of parliamentary reform. Thank you very much, but what exactly is his argument. I'm reading over the Bill and just cannot understand what his argument actually is.
It teaches that God has no beginning because he as always been there
It confuses correlation with causation