0
- The biggest flaw in the argument is that it does prove anything, but instead replaces the supposed problem with a larger problem. If the universe was made by a god because nothing can exist without cause, then something must have "caused" God.This is often countered by saying that God is the exception to the rule, however if God is the exception to the rule why cannot the universe be the exception to the rule without God.
- The original argument is non-specific: It states there must be a First Cause but doesn't say that the First Cause had to be God or a divine being. There are an infinite number of causes other than a human-inspired god that could have caused the creation of the universe. The creator of the universe need not even be supernatural, or sentient or intelligent to satisfy the argument of "first cause".
- The argument makes the assumption that a causal chain of events cannot be infinite, that it must terminate at a point. While the nature of cause and effect is observed by experiment (within the limits of the uncertainty principle at least), whether this chain can be infinite or not is certainly not mandated by experiment and is only inductively prefered.
- It forgets the fact that matter and energy necessarily exist and are not contingent: The 1st Law of Thermodynamics and the Law of Conservation of Mass state that matter or energy cannot be created, nor destroyed. Therefore, there cannot be a state where matter or energy does not exist. Because of this, matter and energy necessarily exist. Therefore, this argument doesn't apply to matter or energy.
Wiki User
∙ 12y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
When was The Kalām Cosmological Argument created?
The Kalām Cosmological Argument was created in 1979.
How many pages does The Kalām Cosmological Argument have?
The Kalām Cosmological Argument has 216 pages.
Is the big bang theory a strong challenge to the cosmological argument?
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.
Who was one of the main proponents of the cosmological argument?
Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas. For additional supporters of this argument, check the corresponding Wikipedia article.
What does the cosmological argument teach us about God?
It teaches that God has no beginning because he as always been there
How the person making the argument influences the responses to it?
Yes
What are the limitations of the cosmological argument?
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.
Is the kalam cosmological argument sound or valid?
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.
How does this excerpt contribute to the argument's impact?
Swift has made his argument; now he's addressing possible responses.
What is the difference between the cosmological theory and the cosmological 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".
Who made cosmological argument?
The cosmological argument has been explored by various philosophers and theologians throughout history, but it is often associated with the work of Thomas Aquinas, a medieval Christian philosopher. Aquinas formulated his version of the argument in his "Five Ways" in his influential work "Summa Theologica."
Why do people disagree with the cosmological argument?
A:The Cosmological Argument forthe existence of God was stated by St Thomas Aquinas, although he did not claim to be the first to use the Argument. Reduced to its simplest possible form, it can be stated as: Some contingent beings existContingent beings require a non-contingent ground of being in order to existTherefore a non-contingent ground of being exists. For Aquinas, this can only be God.Theists hold that everything (contingent beings) must have a creator (the "first cause"), but the creator (non-contingent ground of being) does not require to be created.An argument against the Cosmological Argument says that it has three serious defects:the first premise (Some contingent beings exist) is either unintelligible or is a truism. If it is unintelligible, it is not deserving of serious consideration. If it is a truism, nothing of importance follows from it.It does not help the argument to decide on God as a "first cause", because it is at least as easy to regard the existence of being as uncaused.The conclusion of the argument is so ambiguous that it seems quite impossible either to affirm or deny it.Even if we accept the Cosmological Argument, the non-contingent ground of being does not have to be a deity - we can think of it as the Big Bang. If it is a deity, then it does not have to be the Abrahamic God - we can think of it as Brahma, Ahura Mazda or any other creator god.
