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.
Ques: Can a valid argument be weak? Ans: If the valid argument has logic to it, it cannot be weak, it is strong!
If you are refering to the Cosmological Argument for the Existance of God then the cosmological argument would go something like this. 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause 2. The universe began to exist conclusion. The universe has a cause Someone using this argument would say that the universe began with the big bang which is largely accepted by scientists, so if this argument is sound, then they must accept that the universe has a cause, and thus a causer (creator/God)
For an argument to be valid, it means that if the premises of the argument are true, then the conclusion must be true. Validity has to do with the form of the argument. If one or more of the premises are not true, that does not mean the argument isn't valid. Soundness means that the argument is valid, and all of it's premises are true. It's a little redundant to say "both valid and sound", because if your argument is sound, then it must be valid. It is important for an argument to be not just valid, but also sound, in order for it to be convincing.
Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas. For additional supporters of this argument, check the corresponding Wikipedia article.
A:The cosmological argument for the existence of God states that every finite and contingent thing has a cause, but that causes can not go back in an infinite chain, so there must be a First Cause. There are many limitations and problems with this argument. The cosmological argument is no more than a poorly constructed premise that can mean what you want it to mean.The sometimes response, "Who made God?" may be simplistic, but it does highlight the question of why there is a noncontingent First Cause.An even greater problem for Christians, Muslims and Jews, is that if the cosmological argument were valid, it would equally prove the existence of Brahma, Ahura Mazda or any other creator god.For a scientist, the First Cause can quite validly be the Big Bang. Most scientists at least argue that "God" is not a scientifically proven causeThe cosmological argument can even be restated so as to prove that God need not exist:Whatever begins to exist has a cause.The Universe began to exist.Therefore, the Universe had a cause.
A valid argument is certainly stronger than an invalid argument. but an argument can be valid and still be relatively weak. Validity and strength are not the same, although they are both good features for an argument to have.
No, but all sound arguments are valid arguments. A valid argument is one where the conclusion follows from the premises. A sound argument is a valid argument where the premises are accepted as true.
A hypothesis only becomes a valid argument after it has been proved. It is only a valid argument if there is proof (i.e. from an experiment).
It teaches that God has no beginning because he as always been there
True. - Valid arguments are deductive. - Arguments are valid if the premises lead to the conclusion without committing a fallacy. - If an argument is valid, that means that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. - This means that a valid argument with a false premise can lead to a false conclusion. This is called a valid, unsound argument. - A valid, sound argument would be when, if the premises are true the conclusion must be true and the premises are true.
A valid deductive argument will have a valid premise and conclusion and a fallacy may be true, it all matters on how you came to the conclusion.
Facts cannot be valid. They can only be true or false. Arguments, on the other hand, can be valid. A valid argument in one which must have a true conclusion provided that the premises are true (no guarantee of that though).
Valid means that the argument leads to a true conclusion, given that its premises are true, but if an argument is valid that does not necessarily mean the conclusion is correct, as its premises may be wrong. A sound argument, on the other hand, in addition to being valid all of its premises are true and hence its conclusion is also true.
No, arguments can either be strong or weak, however, a valid argument would be considered a sound argument. The opposite would be an invalid argument.
Cosmological theory is a scientific theory . (It should be noted that a scientific theory differs greatly from common notions of what a theory is) . A cosmological theory takes scientific facts, raw data, evidence & logical argumentation & organizes it as an explanation of the cosmos ... The "argument" is purely philosophical in nature. It's origins are widely attributed a Muslim named Kalam in the Middle Ages. It sought to use the workings of the cosmos as a proof for the existence of a god. It positions a god as a kind of "first mover". However; the argument is weak & has been refuted on many levels. It's based on a misunderstanding of "cause & effect".
Valid arguments must include facts and supporting documentation in order to strengthen the validity. If not, then the argument can be challenged.
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.
An invalid argument is when the facts you are using are invalid or your forms of defense are wrong or incorrect, a valid argument is the opposite of an invalid argument. "There is a windmill in my beard. your argument is invalid." (This is a good example of a bad contradiction)
For your argument to be valid and thus persuasive, your points must be sound. Otherwise, a thinking person will ignore your conclusion and dismiss your argument.
In Debate, specifically in a logical argument, Truth is a premise that corresponds to the way the world actually is. Validity in an argument is that if the premises are true, then so is the conclusion (it is possible for the arguments to be valid even if the premises are false). Soundness is when the premises is true and the argument is valid. To reiterate, arguments cannot be true (only statements can be true), but they can be valid and sound. When an statement is true it goes along with the way the world really is. When an argument is valid, then the premises and the conclusion are logically connected in such a way that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. Saying an argument is valid does not guarantee that the premises are true. When an argument is sound, the premises are true and the argument is valid, so the conclusion must also be true.
An argument that is strong, sound, and valid is a cogent one.