answersLogoWhite

0


Best Answer
Answer I think most Atheists and critical thinkers would argue that the cosmological argument is not relevant and never was. The cosmological argument is a proven logical fallacy.

It alleges that there is a problem that "anything that exists must have a cause, the universe exists, and therefore then universe must have a cause." and replaces it with a bigger problem: By saying that God is the first cause you are saying that God exists and therefore the argument applies to God and God must have a cause. This would then become infinite as whatever caused God must have a cause and whatever caused that must have a cause and so on.

The cosmological argument is therefore self defeating and irrelevant from the get go.

The other big problem is that the argument doesn't even say that the first cause had to be God, it just says there had to be a first cause... That first cause could have been natural. So, making the argument in support of the existence of God is pointless.

Another Answer there are many reasons as to why this debate is still going on, but most of it boils down to the traditional Faith Vs Science debate.

through all of human history we see Scientists being shunned and destroyed for showing people how things work. a Bronze age text known as The Bible, decided to lay it all out for us, the world, the universe, everything. however the men who wrote it didn't have the knowledge and understanding we have today. and every single breakthrough scientists make seems to go against the ancient book. those who have devoted themselves to this book refuse to let go. and for a fairly rational reason.

initial Scientific movements, such as the fact the earth revolves around the sun, were met with the same contempt, if the earth moves around the sun then the earth is no longer the center of the universe, then it was discovered that we weren't even center of the galaxy, and after all that we are on a far edge of only one out of billions of Galaxy's. suddenly the chances we are alone in the universe decrease dramatically, we see how small we are in comparison to existence, the more we discover the smaller we get, the further away god seems, after all that it would be hard to imagine god remembers we are here let alone that we are his favourites.

so now the believers feel distanced from god a little, their faith is being tested, so what happens next? well we discover the universe is about 14 billion years old, created in a massive explosion.

Other discoveries, such as the curved and totally un-flat nature of the world, which goes against the Bible, were put down to being Metaphorical, if you claim that some things are metaphorical you can get away with it, but the big bang theory means the entire first chapter, the creation, and the reason for being, was just metaphorical. and to make such a large and important part of the bible into a metaphor casts a huge shadow of doubt upon every other important aspect, since God himself is in that metaphorical chapter, perhaps God himself is just a metaphor

The Big Bang theory does something else to Christians too, while it doesn't disprove that there is a god, it disproves the one in their book. while there MAY be some form of extra terrestrial power out there watching us, listening to our prayer, and guiding us towards an after life, its not the guy in that book.

Religion, unlike hobbies, isn't something someone does, and unlike science its not something someone can see, and test and advance for themselves, its WHO they are, its WHAT the are. i work with a few devout Christians. One of whom, after being asked the question, "what do you think of the new guy" replied with simply, "well he's a christian". and people cannot just give up who they are just like that.

The fact they cannot give up who they are is what leads to their standard responses. if someone was to tell me that something i believed was false, i would ask them for an explanation as to their reasoning behind their claim, if their thinking had any rational thought behind it i would test their claims, and adjust my beliefs accordingly. Those of faith however, when you question their god, they don't see it as you testing their god, your testing them. and they respond as a threatened animal would, irrationally, often violently, and i would offer up any atheist video on you tube as evidence for this, find any atheist video, and read through the comments.

Since Science is evidence based and Religion isn't, when shown the evidence, Believers have nothing to respond with, and so many wont even bother listening to the evidence, again shown in video's on you tube, how many people of faith have said "i don't believe in evolution because it doesn't answer why we are here, it doesn't answer how the universe began... etc" they have their convictions, and they will stick to them, ultimately making them look stupid, but you have to admire their persistence.

One day the Cosmological argument will cease to be relevant, science will keep moving forward, education will improve, and more people per day turn away from religion, than too it. Religion will die out eventually, just like the Zeus, Odin and Ra... Eventually everyone will have enough knowledge to realise that Jesus is just fairy story's and he will join them in the ranks of Mythological characters

User Avatar

Wiki User

12y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: Why is the cosmological argument still relevant?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp
Related questions

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.


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.


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.


Is the data that says what atoms are made of relevant to the argument that matter is made of atoms?

Not really relevant.


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.