0
What is the evidence for the first premise of the cosmological argument?
Wiki User
∙ 12y ago
If you mean the Kalam cosmological argument used by William Lane Craig in which the first premise is "Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence." The answer is that there is no evidence for this claim. In fact there is evidence to the contrary.
In quantum mechanics, things happen that are not caused. Such as radioactive decay or when an atom in an excited energy level it loses a photon. No cause is evident in the decay of a radioactive nucleus. Craig has said that quantum events are still "caused" just in a non-predetermined manner - what he calls "probabilistic causality." Craig is thereby admitting that the "cause" in his first premise could be an accidental one, something spontaneous and not predetermined. he therefore destroys his own case for a predetermined creation. Even if the KCA was sound, why would the cause itself not be natural?
Wiki User
∙ 12y ago
Wiki User
∙ 8y agoIt is based upon logic only.
However, it is a fallacy to appeal to the Cosmological "everything must have a creator" argument in trying to explain the existence of God, since it leads to the "What created God" retort. Everything created needed a creator, but God is not in that category.
Rather, you can show God's existence by pointing to the bottomless, infinite wisdom which we see in the Creation.
True, some people are willingly blind to this wisdom and are not moved even when you point it out in detail, but all you can do is your best. Talk to your children and to anyone who doesn't have preconceived notions.See also:
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
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.
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".
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.
Does everything have a cause?
According to Quantum Physics - all things don't have a cause. However, you should look at the Cosmological Argument (also known as the First Cause Argument) if you looking on the philosophical side: http:/www.existence-of-god.com/first-cause-argument.html
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."
Back up your arguments with evidence?
I can support my point with facts and data from reputable sources. By citing studies, research papers, expert opinions, or documented evidence, I can provide a strong foundation for my arguments and demonstrate the validity of my claims.
What are the Teleological and cosmological arguments?
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.
Can an argument be valid with false conclusions?
No, an argument is considered valid only if the conclusion logically follows from the premises. If the conclusion is false, it means there is an issue with the soundness of the argument rather than just the validity.
What is the cosmological argument?
The basic Platonic/Aristotelian cosmological argument is this:Every finite and contingent being has a cause.A causal loop cannot exist.A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.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)Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.(2)The universe has a beginning of its existence. Therefore:(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God. Therefore:(5) God exists.The Kalam cosmological argument is the one most often used in contemporary debate by apologists such as Dr. William Lane Craig.
What is the problem with cosmological argument?
The form of the mistake is this: Every member of a collection of dependent beings is accounted for by some explanation. Therefore, the collection of dependent beings is accounted for by one explanation. This argument will fail in trying to reason that there is only one first cause or one necessary cause, i.e. one God .
In modus tollens the second premise a single term is drawn from what part of the first premise?
first or consequent
Why does using evidence help present an argument?
By presenting evidence upfront, you are showing "factual" basis for your argument. Without evidence, to proceed in a case would be like your "word" vs my "word." In Legal matters, there are too many crazies out there just arguing about "opinions" and there are probably zero grounds for the case in the first place.
