What is wrong with the cosmological argument?

A flaw in the cosmological argument is in giving special exclusive status to a deity that would need no creator or origin outside of itself- a necessary being–without acknowledging that such status could be given to the basic stuff, physis, of the universe, its energy, that can take different forms..

What is the main objection to the cosmological argument?

One objection to the argument is that it leaves open the question of why the First Cause is unique in that it does not require any causes. Proponents argue that the First Cause is exempt from having a cause, while opponents argue that this is special pleading or otherwise untrue.

What kind of argument is the Kalam cosmological argument?

deductive argument
Given that the Kalam cosmological argument is a deductive argument, if both premises are true, the truth of the conclusion follows necessarily.

What is the claim of Kalam cosmological argument?

William Lane Craig is the most recognizable contemporary defender of the kalam cosmological argument. The argument, in its simplest form, is that (i) Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence, (ii) The universe began to exist, and (iii) Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Why do people disagree with the cosmological argument?

Opponents of the argument tend to argue that it is unwise to draw conclusions from an extrapolation of causality beyond experience. One objection to the argument is that it leaves open the question of why the First Cause is unique in that it does not require any causes.

Who Criticised the cosmological argument?

One recent critic of the Cosmological Argument, Ronald Hep- burn, has stated our problem as follows: When we are seriously speaking of absolutely everything there is, are we speaking of something that requires a cause, in the way that events in the universe may require causes?

What are the strengths and weaknesses of the cosmological argument?

Terms in this set (9)

• Strength: It’s an ‘a posteriori’ argument.
• Strength: God is a simple explanation.
• Strength: Infinite regress is unlikely.
• Strength: It’s logical.
• Weakness: Inconsistent notion of necessary being.
• (Comeback) God is not bound by universal laws.
• Weakness:
• Weakness:

Is Kalam cosmological argument convincing?

John Taylor complains that the Kalam cosmological argument gives the appearance of being a swift and simple demonstration of the existence of a Creator of the universe, whereas in fact a convincing argument involving the premiss that the universe began to exist is very difficult to achieve.

Which of the following claims is the most likely to be rejected by both Pascal and James?

Which of the following claims is the most likely to be rejected by both Pascal and James? It is possible to demonstrate the existence of God on the basis of sense experience.

Who argued against the cosmological argument?

Existence of infinite causal chains David Hume and later Paul Edwards have invoked a similar principle in their criticisms of the cosmological argument. Rowe has called the principle the Hume-Edwards principle: If the existence of every member of a set is explained, the existence of that set is thereby explained.

What is meant by cosmological argument?

an argument for the existence of God, asserting that the contingency of each entity, and of the universe composed wholly of such entities, demands the admission of an adequate external cause, which is God. Also called cosmological proof .