The cosmological argument is not a

Islamic philosophy enriches the tradition, developing two types of arguments. Arabic philosophers falasifasuch as Ibn Sina c.

The cosmological argument is not a

Form of the argument[ edit ] Craig states the Kalam cosmological argument as a brief syllogismmost commonly rendered as follows: The universe has a cause.

From the conclusion of the initial syllogism, he appends a further premise and conclusion based upon ontological analysis of the properties of the cause: An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and infinitely powerful.

Referring to the implications of Classical Theism that follow from this argument, Craig writes: For it is no secret that one of the most important conceptions of what theists mean by 'God' is Creator of heaven and earth.

Please help improve this section or discuss this issue on the talk page. September The Kalam cosmological argument is based on the concept of the prime-moverintroduced by Aristotleand entered early Christian or Neoplatonist philosophy in Late Antiquity, being developed by John Philoponus.

His chief contribution is the cosmological argument dalil al-huduth for the existence of God, in his work "On First Philosophy". Islamic perspectives may be divided into positive Aristotelian responses strongly supporting the argument, such as those by Al-Kindi, and Averroesand negative responses critical of it, including those by Al-Ghazali and Muhammad Iqbal.

Now, let the cause itself have a cause, and the cause of the cause have yet another cause, and so on ad infinitum. It does not behove you to say that an infinite regress of causes is impossible. To finish the series at a certain point, and to elevate one member of the series to the dignity of an un-caused first cause, is to set at naught the very law of causation on which the whole argument proceeds.

The first three are just different ways of saying the same thing, and they can be considered together. All involve an infinite regress —the answer to a question raises a prior question, and so on ad infinitum. Nothing moves without a prior mover. This leads us to a regress, from which the only escape is God.

Something had to make the first move, and that something we call God. Nothing is caused by itself. Every effect has a prior cause, and again we are pushed back into regress. This has to be terminated by a first cause, which we call God. There must have been a time when no physical things existed.

But, since physical things exist now, there must have been something non-physical to bring them into existence, and that something we call God. All three of these arguments rely upon the idea of a regress and invoke God to terminate it.

What is the Cosmological argument for the existence of God?

They make the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress. Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, simply because we need one, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to God: He states that the first premise is self-evidently true, being based upon the Causal Principle that "something cannot come into being from nothing", or "Ex nihilo nihil fit"originating from Parmenidean philosophy.

The cosmological argument is not a

He attests that this is a crucial first principle of science. If false, it would be inexplicable why anything and everything does not randomly appear into existence without a cause. Inductive reasoning from both common experience and scientific evidence, which constantly verifies and never falsifies the truth of the first premise.

According to Reichenbach, "the Causal Principle has been the subject of extended criticism", which can be divided into philosophical and scientific criticisms.

Mackie and Wes Morriston have objected to the intuitiveness of the first premise. Moreover, that the Causal Principle cannot be extrapolated to the universe from inductive experience.The Kalām cosmological argument is a modern formulation of the cosmological argument for the existence of God; named for the kalam (medieval Islamic scholasticism), it was popularized by William Lane Craig in his The Kalām Cosmological Argument ().

Keep Exploring Britannica

The Cosmological Argument or First Cause Argument is a philosophical argument for the existence of God which explains that everything has a cause, that there must have been a first cause, and that this first cause was itself uncaused.

What the counter argument does is to indicate that the premises of the cosmological argument do not necessarily lead to the conclusion that there is a being that is responsible for the creation of the universe. the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God The cosmological argument seeks to prove the existence of God by looking at the universe.

It is an A posteriori proof based on experience and the observation of the world not logic so the outcome is probable or possible not definite. “The argument against the first cosmological fallacy ends in a negative claim: the claim that we are not entitled to apply to the whole world the methods and habits of mind that modern science has applied to parts of the world.” Ethical egoism; Euthyphro dilemma; Logical positivism; Religious language; Verificationism.

eschatological; Problem of evil; Theodicy. Augustinian; Irenaean; Best of.

The Many Worlds of Logic - Classic Logical Arguments: The Cosmological Argument