Check users, creationist, Administrators
22,649
edits
Cosmological argument: Difference between revisions
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to navigationJump to search
no edit summary
mNo edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The '''cosmological argument''' is a type of argumentation or family of arguments within [[natural theology]] that intends to demonstrate the existence of a "Sufficient Reason or First Cause | The '''cosmological argument''' is a type of argumentation or family of arguments within [[natural theology]] that intends to demonstrate the existence of a "Sufficient Reason or First Cause" for the existence of the cosmos<ref>''Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview'', "The Existence of God" By J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig. pg 465</ref> from apparent self-evident facts. Inasmuch as the [[metaphysical]] concept of [[God]] is un-caused and a non-contingent being who is essentially good the inference leads inexorably to Him as the personal First Cause.<ref name=sca>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/ Cosmological argument] by Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</ref> The First Cause does not always mean the first of events in a long line of events into the past, but that it is the most fundamental cause that endures things at every moment regardless if there is a beginning or not. Certain versions of the argument however do attempt to show the universe as having a beginning like the kalam cosmological argument. It does not assume that there was a beginning but rather demonstrates that through current scientific evidence like the [[big bang theory]]. | ||
==Popular Criticisms== | ==Popular Criticisms== | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
William Lane Craig is the current most prominent defender of the kalam cosmological argument. The argument is essentially that; | William Lane Craig is the current most prominent defender of the kalam cosmological argument. The argument is essentially that; | ||
# | # Whatever begins to exist has a cause. (Premise 1) | ||
# The universe began to exist. | # The universe began to exist. (Premise 2) | ||
# Therefore, the universe has a cause | # Therefore, the universe has a cause. (Conclusion)<ref>[http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5855 J. Howard Sobel on the Kalam Cosmological Argument] Response by William Lane Craig</ref> | ||
====Premise 1==== | |||
Premise is a type of first fundamental law of [[metaphysics]] basically stating that things do not pop into existence from non-being, being only comes from being. This fundamental to metaphysics parallels [[biogenesis]] which is a [[scientific law]] of [[Biology]]. Any other avenue for the premise would be trying to prove something far less obvious instead of supporting the obvious. It is human common sense that being comes from established being. It is a premise that relies on the common experience of humans. Some atheists will actually argue against premise 1 by stating, the universe did pop into being out of non-existence. This is a fail safe last resort point they attempt to get across but rely on complete fabrication and irrational beliefs. It is considered by defenders of the argument when critics question premise 1, that the argument has been won. The appeal for existence from non-existence by atheists and naturalists is actually an appeal to a type of [[miracle]]. | |||
====Premise 2==== | |||
==Natural Theology== | ==Natural Theology== | ||
