Religion & Spirituality
School Subjects
The Difference Between

What are the beliefs about the Cosmological argument?


Top Answer
User Avatar
Wiki User
2011-06-23 20:27:02
2011-06-23 20:27:02
The ArgumentThe cosmological argument is extremely old but has been reused and modified many times.

The basic Platonic/Aristotelian cosmological argument is this:

  1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
  2. A causal loop cannot exist.
  3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
  4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist. God is then often inserted as this "First Cause".

The newer more often quoted Kalam cosmological argument is this:

  1. (1)Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
  2. (2)The universe has a beginning of its existence.


  1. (3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
  2. (4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.


  1. (5) God exists.

The Kalam cosmological argument is the one most often used in contemporary debate by apologists such as Dr. William Lane Craig.

Problems with the various cosmological argumentsThere are some major flaws and logical fallacies in the arguments:
  1. 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.
  2. 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".
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
Dr. William Lane Craig's Wording

Dr. Craig words the argument like so:

  1. (P1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
  2. (P2) The universe began to exist.
  3. (C) Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

Dr. Craig then claims that God did not "begin to exist" but instead has always existed and that his argument is therefore not a logical fallacy. The problem with that however is that it makes the assumption that God was the first cause, that God didn't begin to exist, that the universe did begin to exist, and the biggest assumption of all that God exists which the argument doesn't prove. It ignore scientific hypotheses such as the cyclical model which posits that the universe is in an infinite loop of big bangs followed by big crunches and therefore doesn't have a beginning.

I can make the same argument and say that Unicorns are that first cause.


Related Questions

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.

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)

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.

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".

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.

Both are arguments for the existence of god. They are both similar. The teleological argument, or argument from design posits that there is a god or designer based on the appearance of complexity, order, and design in nature. The argument is usually structured as follows: 1) Complexity implies a designer. 2) The universe is highly complex. 3) Therefore, the universe must have a designer. The cosmological argument, or first cause argument states that god must exist as a first cause to the universe. It is usually structured as follows: 1) Whatever exists has a cause. 2) The universe exists. 3) Therefore the universe had a cause.

Look at life! Atheists cannot feel anymore the each of their own self centered Lust, for only each of their own wants! It is Atheists that have filled our jails up!~ Atheists that stay depressed and are often killing themselves!Back when prayers were still said in public schools, crimes were remote and jails had empty cells!God Dose answer prayers, provided we Pray Only To GOD, as even the Bible states is necessary!Also every single sentence of history in the Bible have anywhere from three to over 250 records found to confirm each sentence! Over 80% of the predictions in the Bible have happened as predicted!LOVE comes only from and with GOD!

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.

Strengths of the argumentThe strengths of the Cosmological Argument lie in both its simplicity and easily comprehensible concept that there cannot be an infinite number of causes to an event. Some arguments for God's existence require more thought and training in terms and concepts, but this argument is basic and simple. Also, it is perfectly logical to assert that objects do not bring themselves into existence and must, therefore, have causes. Weaknesses of the argumentOne of the weaknesses of the argument is that if all things need a cause to exist, then God Himself must also, by definition, need a cause to exist. But this only pushes causation back and implies that there must be an infinite number of causes, which cannot be. Also, by definition, God is uncaused.

Thomas Aquinas was a religious leader who tried to use philosophy to defend religion and its beliefs. He mastered arguments for the existence of God and was the person to initiate a wide range of discussion topics under the tag "theism". He thought the existence of God could be proved logically and he is famous for the cosmological argument.

Pathos is what persuades a reader by targeting their emotions or beliefs.

The cosmological proof for the existence of God, states that since nothing causes itself and everything has a cause, therefore there must be some first cause which started it all. The first cause is God. Knowledgeable people often avoid invoking this proof, since some listeners will retort "Then what caused God?"These listeners are unaware that since God is the only thing possessing intrinsic existence, He is not subject to causality.There are a good number of more convincing arguments for God's existence.

The cosmological theory of the formation of the universe is called the Big Bang theory.

The main arguments for the existence of God are, in various forms: the ontological argument, the cosmological argument and the teleological argument. His existence has also been argued from the Bible and on rational grounds. So many arguments, and so many variations of those arguments, exist because each argument fails under close examination. If any one argument can be put forward that really proves the existence of God, then it will become the one argument for the existence of God, and all the failed arguments will be studied as historical only.

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.

Cosmological metaphysics is a branch of philosophy which deals with the place of mankind in the universe. It attempts to understand and explain why everything came to be.

The big bang theory is a cosmological model. Is this really the question you are trying to ask?

The "cosmological constant".

Copyright © 2020 Multiply Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. The material on this site can not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with prior written permission of Multiply.