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 a central theme of the cosmological argument that there need not be a beginning, but that the First Cause actually endures existence at every moment. In other words the most prominent defenders of the cosmological argument, outside of the [[Islamic]] inspired ''kalam'' version, do not formulate the argument with concern for a 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>

# That necessary being is God.<ref>''The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology'' pg. 25-26. Edited William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6''</ref>