The Kalam Cosmological Argument and the B-theory of time
INTRODUCTION
Inherent in the Kalam Cosmological Argument, as defended by WIlliam Lane Craig, is the assumption of the A-theory of time. The A-theory of time accepts the view that there is a past, present and future, where future moments become increasingly present, and present moments become increasing past. Time exists very much like the way we experience it. The alternative view, the B-theory of time, sees time as a totality, that all times exist equally, or are equally real. Moments in time are ordered/related in terms of earlier-than, simultaneous with and later-than.
I intend to defend a version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument that does not require the use of the A-theory of time, that is, that the Kalam Cosmological Argument cannot be rejected on the grounds of this assumption.
In a syllogistic fashion, Craig presents the
…show more content…
Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of existence
His defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument revolves mostly around the second premise. This is mostly due to him finding the first premise as intuitively obvious, where he claims that “no one, seriously denies it”. From experience, we find that physical objects do not come into existence without causes. Additionally, the ancient Parmenidean contention of “ex nihilo, nihil fit”, seems impossible to reject. However, Craig argues the first premise out of an A-theory of time, and thus we shall look at a further analysis of the first premise:
1. x begins to exist at t, iff x comes into being at t
2. x comes into being at t iff (i) x exists at t, and the actual world includes no state of affairs in which x exists timelessly, (ii) t is either the first time at which x exists or is seperated from any t* < t at which x existed by an interval during which x does not exist, and (iii) x’s existing at t is a tensed fact (Craig,
I have to admit that Zimmerman’s talk was hard at times for me to comprehend. I would love feedback if I understood his divine argument wrong, because I have had a few discussions about it with my peers and many took away different views from his final argument for a divine being, and in this paper I will explain how I understood his final argument. To come upon the divine being of God, he had to eliminate all the other contingent and necessary options believed by other philosophers and scientists through reasoning. He explained how it wasn’t possible for their to be no answer for the cosmos, nor were any of the contingent explanations of science, philosophy, or an infinite past made any sense.
The Teleological argument is also a cosmological argument it also begins with the existence of the cosmos. McCloskey rejects this argument along with the argument of design by rejecting the premise. However, “Tennant and Swinburne developed a version of this argument not as strict deductive proof but to show probability of theism” (Evans & Manis) The theory of evolution was offered as an explanation for the creation of design which was rejected because there many things before the theory of evolution. McCloskey believe there must be indisputable proof of actual evidence to prove evolution.
The first premise of my argument is, there has never been the case in our lives were a thing was the efficient cause of its self. This premise says that nothing can be the cause of itself and thus it cannot have existed before it has existed. An example is a cup made of plastic, the cup is not its first efficient cause since it cannot create its self. The cup was created by a human who is the first efficient cause, he used a machine and plastic which are intermediary causes leading to the ultimate cause, the plastic
Philosopher Saint Thomas Aquinas attempted to justify god’s existence through the study of the cosmos. With this argument, Aquinas borrowed many ideas from the philosopher Aristotle, which actually influenced some of his key parts. Aquinas offers five proofs to god existence in two of his works. Two out of the five are used in the cosmological argument for god’s existence. This cosmological argument is based on the observation of the physical world, which includes the cosmos.
Humans have often wondered how the universe developed into what it is today. For centuries, it has induced religious and scientific discussions and debates, leading famous scientists to trying to discover the enigma which the development of the universe is. One of the most accepted model to represent the evolution of the universe is the big bang theory. “It is an attempt to explain how the universe developed from a very tiny, dense state into what it is today” (Strickland, 2008).
The cosmological argument looks to the world to prove God’s existence rather than pure definitions. The proponent of the cosmological argument was St. Thomas Aquinas, a theologian in the eleventh century CE (Solomon). He proposed that everything that exists must have a cause, and that the cause was God (Aquinas). Aquinas’ first point was based off of motion, that nothing can be both the mover and moved. An item sitting in place has the potential to be moving, but cannot move unless something that is already moving imparts motion to it
The teleological argument to me is what makes God’s existence real because of the design of our world and the creation of the living things. Who else could have created the earth and all the living things around us? It couldn’t be the humans; because it brings us back to the question on how were humans created? Everything has a starting point, and this starting point happens to be an intelligent designer who created the universe. A man can create such things as electronics, statues and buildings but can’t design the world and all the living things.
In this he questions the attributes of God that are traditionally used to describe him. He claims that there is a lack of foundational evidence to prove that God is not only the creator of the universe but is the All Mighty God that he is described as (Speaks). Rather than Hume arguing that Paley’s argument is false, he focuses heavily on if God even exists or if he is the higher figure that he is painted as. Another argument that can be used against Paley is the theory of the Big Bang Theory.
This theory understands the problems and hypocrisy of the original argument and looks at it this way instead: everything that has a beginning in time has a cause of existence. Most scientists agree that the universe has a beginning in time – some say it is the big bang – and thus must have been caused by something. This something would then be God. This is the closest the argument gets to proving the existence of God.
The cosmological argument is a philosophical argument which is in favour of the existence of God. It is both a posteriori and inductive argument. This means that the argument is based on the evidence in the world around and the argument itself can only persuade the audience reading it as it is only a inductive argument not a deductive argument which means that not all of the facts said in the argument may not be true. In the case of the cosmological argument, the argument has been formed to persuade us of the existence of God. The argument is also based on the concept of causation which is also known as the law of cause and effect
Black holes are areas in which huge amounts of mass are compressed together, creating a gravitational field so strong that when it crosses the black hole, not even light can escape. They are the final stage for stars 10-15 times as massive as our Sun, because after they explode into a supernova, the gravity causes them to collapse into themselves. They shrink and compress mass until the former star’s volume is at 0. When this happens, they become infinitely dense and the star’s own light becomes trapped inside. The black holes can only pull in objects of similar or lesser mass, since their gravitational pull is only as strong as their mass.
The traditional claim of all Cosmological Arguments is defined as “something outside the universe is responsible to explain the existence of the universe” (PowerPoint 380). In the “causal argument,” or the First Cause Argument on the cosmological argument, “something” outside of the universe that is supposed to inform us about the existence of the universe is argued to be explained as God. As the first cause argument goes into depth and with the help of Thomas Aquinas, it is easy to see how God is responsible for explaining the existence of the universe around us. Within the first cause argument on the cosmological argument the following premises and conclusions are discussed: Premise 1: There exists things that are caused. Meaning that
The cosmological argument says that everything has a cause. The chain of causes cannot reach back indefinitely and at some point there must be a first cause. The First Cause we may call God. This is not a strong argument because this says that God was the first cause in a long chain of causes, but what caused God? This argument says that everything must have a cause, but in the end says that God has no cause.
St. Anselm and Descartes are known for presenting the first ontological arguments on the existence of God. The word ontological is a compound word derived from ‘ont’ which means exists or being and ‘–ology’ which means the study of. Even though Anselm and Descartes’ arguments differ slightly, they both stem from the same reasoning. Unlike the other two arguments on God’s existence (teleological and cosmological), the ontological argument does not seek to use any empirical evidence but rather concentrates on pure reason. The rationale behind this school of thought
SOLUSI UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF THEOLOGY AND RELIGIOUS STUDIES A report done in partial fulfillment of the course required RELT 389 SCIENCE OF ORIGINGS TERM PAPER: WEAKNESSES OF THE BIG BANG THEORY Presented By Takudzwa A Denhere ID: 2011050104 Lecturer: Mr. Sibanda The big bang theory and its history