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.
The theory about the first cause, known as the cosmological argument, suggests that something must have caused the existence of the universe. This "first cause" is often understood as a necessary being or God that initiated the chain of causation that led to the creation of the universe.
ok :) first challenge of natural environment theory is .. a HMMMP / . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .DI KO ALAM EH
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".
Beuly Suhr was one of the first people to challenge her theory because she's a badass and she can eat bananas while doing a hand stand
The cosmological argument's reductio ad absurdum seeks to demonstrate that the existence of the universe necessitates a first cause, often identified as God. Critics argue that this reasoning may not be valid, as it assumes that everything must have a cause, which may not apply to the universe itself. Additionally, alternative explanations, such as quantum mechanics or multiverse theories, challenge the necessity of a single first cause. Thus, while the reductio ad absurdum structure can be compelling, its validity remains a topic of philosophical debate.
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
Nicholaus Copernicus was one of the first to challenge the theory that the earth was the center of the universe. He made up the Heliocentric theory.
Thomas Aquinas's believed that there had to be a God because he thought that everything had a cause and the cause for the Universe is God. God had to be the first cause.
The 'First Cause Argument' is based on the biblical creation story, so it would be false logic and a circular argument then to use the creation story to support the First Cause Argument.For more information on the Bible creation story, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation
Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace were the first to formulate a scientific argument for the theory of evolution by means of natural selection
Prima Causa is a Latin term. Prima meaning "first." Causa meaning "cause, or event." Prima Causa then means "first cause."