0
If you mean the Kalam cosmological argument used by William Lane Craig in which the first premise is "Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence." The answer is that there is no evidence for this claim. In fact there is evidence to the contrary.
In quantum mechanics, things happen that are not caused. Such as radioactive decay or when an atom in an excited energy level it loses a photon. No cause is evident in the decay of a radioactive nucleus. Craig has said that quantum events are still "caused" just in a non-predetermined manner - what he calls "probabilistic causality." Craig is thereby admitting that the "cause" in his first premise could be an accidental one, something spontaneous and not predetermined. he therefore destroys his own case for a predetermined creation. Even if the KCA was sound, why would the cause itself not be natural?
It is based upon logic only.
However, it is a fallacy to appeal to the Cosmological "everything must have a creator" argument in trying to explain the existence of God, since it leads to the "What created God" retort. Everything created needed a creator, but God is not in that category.
Rather, you can show God's existence by pointing to the bottomless, infinite wisdom which we see in the Creation.
True, some people are willingly blind to this wisdom and are not moved even when you point it out in detail, but all you can do is your best. Talk to your children and to anyone who doesn't have preconceived notions.See also:
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Is the big bang theory a strong challenge to the cosmological argument?
The Big Bang theory can be seen as supporting the cosmological argument, which seeks to explain the origin of the universe. Some proponents of the cosmological argument point to the Big Bang as evidence of a finite beginning to the universe, which aligns with the argument for a first cause. However, the relationship between the Big Bang theory and the cosmological argument is complex and subject to different interpretations.
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?
The cosmological theory is a scientific explanation for the origins and evolution of the universe, while the cosmological argument is a philosophical argument for the existence of God based on the principle that everything that exists must have a cause.
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.
Why do people disagree with the cosmological argument?
A:The Cosmological Argument forthe existence of God was stated by St Thomas Aquinas, although he did not claim to be the first to use the Argument. Reduced to its simplest possible form, it can be stated as: Some contingent beings existContingent beings require a non-contingent ground of being in order to existTherefore 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.
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.
How does the cosmological argument work?
The cosmological argument is a philosophical argument that attempts to prove the existence of God by showing that the universe could not have originated from nothing and must have a cause or explanation. It states that every contingent being has a cause, and since an infinite regress of causes is not possible, there must be a first cause (God) to explain the existence of the universe. It is often associated with philosophers like Thomas Aquinas and William Lane Craig.
Does everything have a cause?
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
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.
Who made cosmological argument?
The cosmological argument has been explored by various philosophers and theologians throughout history, but it is often associated with the work of Thomas Aquinas, a medieval Christian philosopher. Aquinas formulated his version of the argument in his "Five Ways" in his influential work "Summa Theologica."
What is the cosmological argument?
The cosmological argument is a philosophical argument for the existence of God based on the belief that the universe had a beginning and must have had a cause. It posits that something outside the universe must have initiated its existence. Different versions of the argument have been proposed throughout history by philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas and William Lane Craig.
What is the theory about the first cause?
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.
