0
The cosmological argument is not so much an argument itself as a style of argumentation concerning the theoretical necessity for a first member for any series dependent upon time. It was put forth by Aristotle as an argument for a Prime Mover in book 12 of his Metaphysics. The argument itself, however, may be older than Aristotle. St. Thomas Aquinas later popularized it as an argument for the existence of God which, though it does not prove the being of a benevolent and intelligent creator, comes as close to proving God's existence as Aquinas thought secular reasoning to be capable.
Wiki User
β 13y ago
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."
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
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.
What are the five ways of reason?
The five ways of reason refer to the five logical arguments put forth by the philosopher Saint Thomas Aquinas to prove the existence of God. These arguments include the unmoved mover, the first cause, the cosmological argument, the argument from degree, and the teleological argument. Aquinas believed these reasons demonstrated the existence of a supreme being.
What is an ad hominem argument?
An ad hominem argument is when someone attacks the person making an argument instead of addressing the argument itself. This type of fallacy is meant to discredit the person rather than engaging with the actual points being made.
What is a Oppositional Argument?
An oppositional argument is a position taken by one party that directly opposes or refutes a specific claim or argument made by another party. It aims to present counterpoints or different perspectives in response to the original argument.
Why is it important to examine evidence of an argument?
Examining evidence helps to ensure that the argument is well-supported and credible. It allows for a deeper understanding of the topic by providing factual support for claims made. By evaluating the evidence, one can determine the validity and strength of the argument being presented.
When was The KalΔm Cosmological Argument created?
The Kalām Cosmological Argument was created in 1979.
How many pages does The KalΔm 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.
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.
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.
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
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".
How is the cosmological argument convincing?
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.
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.
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
