0
- Some contingent beings exist
- Contingent beings require a non-contingent ground of being in order to exist
- Therefore 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.
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.
Is the kalam cosmological argument sound or valid?
Sound.
When is something an argument?
When two people or more disagree with each other and they express their opinions. Sometimes the argument can be friendly and sometimes unfriendly.
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 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.
Why do so many people want to ignore the other side of the global warming argument?
People ignore the other side (the one they disagree with) because they disagree with it. People stick to what they believe. They look at the facts and they decide what they want to believe.
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 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.
How does the argument end in gun control?
Only if everyone agrees to disagree
