Random
Source Code
Random
1. the argument which states: anything which is an effect must have a cause.
2. the argument which states: anything that exists has a beginning.
1. the universe is an effect, therefore the universe has a cause.
2. the universe exists, therefore the universe has a beginning.
11👍 6👎
The kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God originated and became highly developed in Islamic theology during the late Middle Ages. It gets its name from the word "kalam", which refers to Arabic philosophy or theology. Traditionally the argument was used to demonstrate the impossibility of an actual infinite existing in the real world, as well as an argument from temporal regress, thus showing that the universe cannot be eternal. In recent years these philosophical arguments have been confirmed by scientific discoveries, viz., the Big Bang theory. The most thorough and articulate proponent of the argument today is Dr. William Lane Craig.
Statement of the (modern) deductive Kalam Cosmological Argument:
p1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. (Causal principle.)
p2. The universe (space, time, and matter) began to exist. (Evidenced by two philosophical arguments, the Big Bang, and the second law of thermodynamics.)
c3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
Sub-argument:
sp1. As the cause of the universe (space, time, and matter), the cause must be outside of space, time and matter, and therefore be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. Moreover, the cause must be a personal agent, otherwise a timeless cause could not give rise to a temporal effect like the universe. (Argument expanded.)
sp2. This is an accurate picture of God.
sc3. Therefore, God exists.
84👍 43👎
An argument for the existence of God that is ultimately self-refuting.
It states that the universe must have had a beginning because "infinity cannot exist in reality", but then how can God exist?
There are many additional reasons why the Kalam Cosmological Argument fails miserably. Just look them up on the Web if you're interested.
11👍 40👎
The cosmological argument is the notion that God created the universe and that there is always a cause and an effect. The three main parts to the cosmological argument is the uncaused cause, unmoved mover and possibility and necessity/possibility and contingency. There are 5 ways in Aquinas's version of the cosmological argument, however I'm only discussing the 3 that I stated as they are the main parts of the argument as urban dictionary only let's me type a limited quantity of characters.
Uncaused cause (4 premises and a conclusion)
• Everything has a cause
•Every cause has a cause
• This cannot go back forever
•Therefore there must be an uncaused cause which doesn't have a cause.
•The uncaused cause is what we understand as God
Unmoved mover (2 premises and a conclusion)
•Everything that has been moved by something and that mover has been moved by something else.
•This chain cannot go back forever or movement would not have started in the first place.
•Therefore there must be an unmoved mover which isn't itself moved. This unmoved mover must be God
Possibility and necessity/possibility and contingency:
This one is simple. A contingent being is a being which needs a cause and a necessary being is the opposite meaning a being doesn't need a cause. It is believed that God is the necessary being who created the world.
Now that you know the fundamentals of the cosmological argument, read up the teleological argument (the argument from design)