Cosmological argument: Difference between revisions

The '''cosmological argument''' is really a family of arguments that fall within [[natural theology]] and seek to demonstrate, through [[a priori]] and [[empirical]] knowledge, a "Sufficient Reason or First Cause".<ref>By J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, ''Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview'', "The Existence of God", pg 465</ref> [[Theism]] throughout the [[history]] of [[philosophy]] has been considered to identify the [[Metaphysics|metaphysically]] necessary characteristics of that First Cause.<ref name=sca>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/ Cosmological argument] by Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</ref> A theistic natural theology regards the cosmological argument as central, inexorably leading to what is the classic concept of [[God]]. It is also a central theme of the cosmological argument that it is not necessary for the First Cause do initiate time, but that it endures existence at every moment regardless if there is a beginning or not. In other words the historical use of the cosmological argument by its most prominent defenders, outside of the ''kalam'' version, does not concern itself at all with the beginning of the [[universe]] (''See: [[Big bang theory]]'').<ref>[http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html So you think you understand the cosmological argument? Question 3. "Why assume that the universe had a beginning?" is not a serious objection to the argument] By Edward Feser. Saturday, July 16, 2011 </ref>