Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Kalam Cosmological Argument

Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion 1: Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

Do you agree with this or not?

 
IhartU

Asked by IhartU at 9:17 AM on Sep. 10, 2009 in Religion & Beliefs

Level 27 (31,412 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (7)
  • I think this is based on a very linear idea of time and cause/effect. If time as we perceive it (linear- this precedes this which follows this) is a factor of our own consciousness and not a true condition of the universe, that throws the 'first cause' argument out the window.

    Some aspects of quantum physics point to a universe that is not as linear as is once believed.... that on some quantum level all things are happening at once. We just don't perceive that way. Just like going up an elevator, where we only see one floor at a time, even though the entire building is already there in it's entirety outside our view. We are viewing things from our own little box of understanding and it's quite possible to me that this argument is based on a flawed assumption of time.
    Freela

    Answer by Freela at 10:14 AM on Sep. 10, 2009

  • I mostly think it's random.
    writeon

    Answer by writeon at 9:19 AM on Sep. 10, 2009

  • I think it falls apart in the first sentence. They are assuming everything has a cause and perhaps it doesn't!
    IhartU

    Answer by IhartU at 9:21 AM on Sep. 10, 2009

  • No, I don't believe there's any reason we're here...besides that it just happened.

    I do, however, think we should feel extremely lucky because the odds are very much against us.
    metalcowgirl34

    Answer by metalcowgirl34 at 12:25 PM on Sep. 10, 2009

  • A cause, yes. A reason, a cause with thought behind it, or an intended cause, no. So I agree & the only problem I see is confusing cause with intention or reason.
    nysa00

    Answer by nysa00 at 12:48 PM on Sep. 10, 2009

  • I think it falls apart in the first sentence. They are assuming everything has a cause and perhaps it doesn't!


    Actually, it doesn't say everything has a cause it says everything that begins to exist has a cause.  So it's not saying there's some universal law which says, ' everything needs a cause' but  os based on the "principle of sufficient reason".  Which is the idea that everything must have sufficient reason for its existence. Things can have that reason in themselves or outside of themselves. Those things which have the reason in themselves are self-sufficient (necessary) beings. When something has a reason outside of itself, it is caused (a contingent being).  In fact, that is exactly what a 'reason outside of itself' is-- a cause.

    eringobrough

    Answer by eringobrough at 2:48 PM on Sep. 10, 2009

  • So basically the first line of the premise is based on a fundamental law of natural science - that matter cannnot be created or destroyed. So to claim there is a problem with the first premise you'd need to demonstrate how the natural law is wrong.

    What kalam Cosmological argument really says is more like the idea that if the universe had a beginning, then it was either caused or not-caused, if caused, then the cause is either personal or not-personal.
    eringobrough

    Answer by eringobrough at 2:55 PM on Sep. 10, 2009

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN