0
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
What are the criticisms of cosmological argument?
Critics of the cosmological argument often argue that it does not necessarily point to the existence of a specific god or deity, and that it relies on the assumption that everything must have a cause without explaining what caused the initial cause. They also argue that the argument may not provide definitive proof of a god's existence and that it is based on premises that are not universally accepted.
