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.
What else can I help you with?
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.
Why do people agree with the cosmological argument?
People may agree with the cosmological argument because it provides a logical explanation for the existence of the universe by asserting the need for a first cause or prime mover. This argument appeals to the idea of cause and effect and suggests that there must be a necessary being that initiated the chain of causation. Additionally, some find comfort in the notion of a higher power or ultimate source of existence.
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.
What are facts about the cosmological argument?
The cosmological argument is a type of argument for the existence of God based on the idea that the universe must have a cause that originated it. It asserts that everything that begins to exist must have a cause, and since the universe began to exist, it must also have a cause. This argument has been debated for centuries by philosophers and theologians.
Is the cosmological argument valid?
The cosmological argument is a metaphysical argument for the existence of a first cause or necessary being that initiated the existence of the universe. Its validity depends on one's philosophical perspective and interpretation of causality and existence. Some find it compelling, while others criticize its assumptions and conclusions.
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.
Who rejected the cosmological argument?
Many philosophers and thinkers have rejected the cosmological argument, including David Hume, Bertrand Russell, and J.L. Mackie. They have raised objections related to the assumptions of causality, the principle of sufficient reason, and the existence of an uncaused 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 did hume reject the cosmological argument?
Hume rejected the cosmological argument because he believed that it relied on the assumption of a necessary being, which cannot be proven to exist. He also argued that there is no logical reason to assume that the universe must have a cause or explanation beyond itself.
What does the cosmological argument teach us about God?
It teaches that God has no beginning because he as always been there
