answersLogoWhite

Top Answer
User Avatar
Wiki User
Answered 2011-06-23 22:19:42

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?

001
๐Ÿ™
0
๐Ÿคจ
0
๐Ÿ˜ฎ
0
๐Ÿ˜‚
0
User Avatar

User Avatar
Wiki User
Answered 2016-03-29 19:55:06

It 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:

Can you show that God exists

God's wisdom seen in His creations

More about God's wisdom

001
๐Ÿ™
0
๐Ÿคจ
0
๐Ÿ˜ฎ
0
๐Ÿ˜‚
0
User Avatar

Your Answer

Still Have Questions?

Related Questions

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.


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?

An argument can be logically valid, but quite demonstrably wrong, because its first premise is false.How to choose the right starting points is a difficult part, if not impossible...Who knows which axioms are "correct" ?


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.


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.


Constituents of categorical syllogisms?

The constituents of categorical syllogism are Matter and Form. A. Matter: Proximate Major Term -is a term with greater extension -is the predicate of the conclusion -is found in the major premise Minor Term -is a term with lesser extension -is the subject of the conclusion -is found in the minor premise Middle Term -is the term which compares the major and the minor term. B. Matter: Remote Major Premise -is the first premise, and it contains the universal principle. Minor Premise -is the second premise, and it carries the application of the universal principle. Conclusion -is the main claim of the argument. B. Form: External and Internal External form -is the expressional structure of the syllogism. Internal form -is the constituent principle of the nature and unity of the syllogism.


What are the beliefs about the Cosmological argument?

The ArgumentThe cosmological argument is extremely old but has been reused and modified many times. 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.Problems with the various cosmological argumentsThere are some major flaws and logical fallacies in the arguments: 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.Dr. William Lane Craig's WordingDr. Craig words the argument like so:(P1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.(P2) The universe began to exist.(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.


What is the formula for base and power in java program?

powpublic static double pow(double a, double b) Returns the value of the first argument raised to the power of the second argument. Special cases: If the second argument is positive or negative zero, then the result is 1.0.If the second argument is 1.0, then the result is the same as the first argument.If the second argument is NaN, then the result is NaN.If the first argument is NaN and the second argument is nonzero, then the result is NaN.If the absolute value of the first argument is greater than 1 and the second argument is positive infinity, orthe absolute value of the first argument is less than 1 and the second argument is negative infinity,then the result is positive infinity.If the absolute value of the first argument is greater than 1 and the second argument is negative infinity, orthe absolute value of the first argument is less than 1 and the second argument is positive infinity,then the result is positive zero.If the absolute value of the first argument equals 1 and the second argument is infinite, then the result is NaN.If the first argument is positive zero and the second argument is greater than zero, orthe first argument is positive infinity and the second argument is less than zero,then the result is positive zero.If the first argument is positive zero and the second argument is less than zero, orthe first argument is positive infinity and the second argument is greater than zero,then the result is positive infinity.If the first argument is negative zero and the second argument is greater than zero but not a finite odd integer, orthe first argument is negative infinity and the second argument is less than zero but not a finite odd integer,then the result is positive zero.If the first argument is negative zero and the second argument is a positive finite odd integer, orthe first argument is negative infinity and the second argument is a negative finite odd integer,then the result is negative zero.If the first argument is negative zero and the second argument is less than zero but not a finite odd integer, orthe first argument is negative infinity and the second argument is greater than zero but not a finite odd integer,then the result is positive infinity.If the first argument is negative zero and the second argument is a negative finite odd integer, orthe first argument is negative infinity and the second argument is a positive finite odd integer,then the result is negative infinity.If the first argument is finite and less than zero if the second argument is a finite even integer, the result is equal to the result of raising the absolute value of the first argument to the power of the second argumentif the second argument is a finite odd integer, the result is equal to the negative of the result of raising the absolute value of the first argument to the power of the second argumentif the second argument is finite and not an integer, then the result is NaN.If both arguments are integers, then the result is exactly equal to the mathematical result of raising the first argument to the power of the second argument if that result can in fact be represented exactly as a double value.(In the foregoing descriptions, a floating-point value is considered to be an integer if and only if it is finite and a fixed point of the method ceil or, equivalently, a fixed point of the method floor. A value is a fixed point of a one-argument method if and only if the result of applying the method to the value is equal to the value.)A result must be within 1 ulp of the correctly rounded result. Results must be semi-monotonic.Parameters:a - the base.b - the exponent.Returns:the value ab.Taken from the Java api.


What are four similarities between the cosmological and the teleological argument?

Both arguments were stated by St. Thomas Aquinas: the cosmological argument was his third and the teleological was his fifth of five arguments intended to prove the existence of God.Both arguments extrapolate from assumptions and truisms to the "necessary" conclusion.Both arguments are based on faith. Because of this, they simply assume that if there is a god, it can only be the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity or Islam. Neither argument concerns itself with whether the god it claims to find could be a Hindu god or the god of another pantheon.Both arguments can be faulted and shown to be logically unsound.


What features of an argument make it inductive reasoning?

One AnswerInductive reasoning is a form of logical reasoning that begins with a particular argument and arrives at a universal logical conclusion. An example is when you first observe falling objects, and as a result, formulate a general operational law of gravity.A critical factor for identifying an argument based on inductive reasoning is the nature relationships among the premises underlying the propositions in an argument. Logical reasoning exists in an argument only when a premise or premises flow with logical necessity into the resulting conclusion. Hence, there is no sequence.The following is an example of an Inductive Argument:Premise 1. You know that a woman named Daffodil lives somewhere your building.Premise 2: Daffodil has a shrill voice.Premise 3. You hear a woman in the apartment next door yelling with a yelling with a shrill voice.Conclusion: It is likely that the woman fighting in the apartment is Daffodil.Note how the detailed premises logically flow together into the conclusion. This is the hallmark of inductive reasoning.Another AnswerI have heard of a mathematical proof that quantifies inductive reasoning through patterns in numbers, its called Occums Razor.Another AnswerThe information contained in the premises of an argument is supposed to provide evidence for its conclusion. In a good (valid) argument, they do; the conclusion follows logically from the premises. In a bad (invalid) argument, they do not.When the evidence provided by the premises is conclusive, or, minimally, supposed to be conclusive, the argument is a deductive one; otherwise, it is inductive.To use the metaphor of containment, in a valid deductive argument the information contained in its conclusion is always equal to or less than the information provided by its premises. For example, where 'p' stands for any proposition, the argument: "p, hence p" is valid (even though it's trivial). The information in the conclusion is obviously the same as the information in the premise. (In an actual case, this valid argument would be "sound" if the premise were true, and it would be valid but "unsound" if the premise were false.)By way of contrast, in an inductive argument, the information in the premises is always weaker than the information in the conclusion.For example, suppose that all the senators from a certain state have been male. Someone might argue that, since the first senator was male and since the second senator was male and since the third senator was male and so on, then the next senator will also be male. In this case, the information contained in the conclusion is not already contained in its premises (because its premises say nothing about the next senator). Is this, then, a successful argument?Obviously, it is not in the sense that there is a logical gap between the information contained in the premises and the information contained in the conclusion. On the other hand, some might argue that the premises provide some, but not conclusive, evidence of the truth of the conclusion. It might, in other words, be more likely that the next senator would be male, but that is not for certain.Therefore, in a deductive argument, the relevant evidence is, if true and the argument is valid, conclusive.However, in an inductive argument, the evidence provided by all the premises is never conclusive.CautionPeople often confuse inductive and deductive arguments. inductive arguments often reason from a set of particulars to a generality; deductive arguments often reason from a generality to a set of particulars. For example, if I see three robins (the bird, not Batman's sidekick) and they all have red breasts, then I can use inductive reasoning to say that all robins have red breasts (I start with what I've seen and make a general rule about it). Once I've made the rule that all robins have red breasts, then I can use deductive reasoning to say that the next robin I see will have a red breast (I start with a general rule and make a statement about a particular thing I will see).However, there are deductive arguments that move from general premises to general conclusions. Eg., All dogs are canines. All canines are mammals. Therefore, all dogs are mammals. And inductive arguments that move from particulars to particulars. Eg., These shoes are like the ones I bought last year at Zmart. The ones I bought last year are still wearable so these shoes are likely to be wearable too.


What was the first element?

Copper. More probably Gold, it doesn't corrode. If your asking cosmological not technological, it is definitely Hydrogen.


Does the Bible creation story support the first cause argument?

The 'First Cause Argument' is based on the biblical creation story, so it would be false logic and a circular argument then to use the creation story to support the First Cause Argument.For more information on the Bible creation story, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation


Why do Christians need an uncaused first cause?

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, an uncreated creator. This argument is no longer very often used formally because of its many limitations and problems, although there remains an underlying assumption among Christians as to its truth. Other religions, even to a certain extent Judaism, do not dwell on the necessity of a divine creator to the extent that Christianity does, so it is true to say that Christians need an uncaused first cause. The cosmological argument can even be restated so as to prove that God need not exist: 1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause.2.The Universe began to exist.3.Therefore, the Universe had a cause.Another Answer:Not just Christians as it is known as the universal, immutable Law of Cause and Effect. Taken to its logical 'beginning' there must be a first cause. Even science to day is looking for the 'God particle' and some think they may have evidence of it:The law of cause and effect states that:Every effect has a specific and predictable cause.Every cause or action has a specific and predictable effect.


What is the first sentence of a argument paragraph?

intoroduction


How do you refer to the first argument supplied by a user in a shell script?

The first argument is always $1. It may or may not exist, but is always referred to by $1.


How you can got the first character of an argument in command line argument in java?

in your code u always write public static void main(String args[]) { //here array args will hold the command line arguments. Indexing from zero for //first argument //with substring(args[0],1) u can get 1st char of first argument. }


What is the idea of self-government is in the first three words of the constitution what are these words?

"We, the People" are the first three words of the US Constitution and relate to the premise that the government belongs to the people. According to this premise, self-government and self-determination is the right of all people.


What is the rhetorical term for PREMISE of argument?

A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood. Argument is one of the traditionalmodes of discourse. Adjective: argumentative.Daniel J. O'Keefe, a professor of communication and persuasion theory, has distinguished two senses of argument. Put simply, "Argument1, the first sense, is a thing people make, as when an editorialist argues that some public policy is wrong. Argument2 is a kind of interaction people have, as when two friends argue aboutwhere to have lunch.(For the specialized use of this term in language studies, see Argument [Linguistics].)So argument1 comes close to the ancient rhetorical notion of argument, while argument2legitimates the modern interactional research"(quoted by Dale Hample in "A Third Perspective on Argument." Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1985).


If you have your first argument with your best friend and you walk away feeling closer to him or even in love then ARE you in love and if yes then why has it taken that argument to realize that?

Maybe you are in love with your best friend, it's possible. You need to find why you had the argument in the first place.


Who was the first philosopher to propose an ontological argument?

The first philosopher to propose an ontological argument is still up for debate. Some think that Greek philosophers, such as Plato, first argued it. The mainstream view is that the ontological argument was first developed by St. Anselm. Others believe that the Islamic philosopher Avicenna was the first, and may others view the philosopher Descartes as being the first.


Why is there no evidence of global warming?

I could only find one argument that some people still debate as a "no evidence" theory. The argument by some is, if the Earth is indeed warming, it would benefit us rather than cause us problems or harm. This argument asserts that the period between 5000BC and 3000BC was when the Earth was at its "climatic optimum" and this is when humans first started to build up civilized societies. Plants and animals have usually thrived during the planet's warmer periods, as opposed to the ice ages which have caused survival problems for many species. New land would be available and agriculture would benefit. Although this argument doesn't really deny the existence of global warming, it does come under the banner of "no evidence" because of its suggestion of benefit rather than problem.


Why is police brutality an important topic today?

In order to answer this you must first accept the question as a true premise - which I do not.


What is the meaning of testimonial evidence?

Testimonial evidence is evidence given by a witness of things they've experienced first-hand. The first-hand account of a witness is called their testimony.


Still have questions?