How convincing is the kalam argument

Form of the argument[ edit ] Craig states the Kalam cosmological argument as a brief syllogismmost commonly rendered as follows:

However, this cause cannot be the universe itself. If the universe began to exist, it must have an age and is therefore restricted by dimensions of time. The fact that the universe can possibly expand must imply the existence of special restrictions within the universe, with both of these qualities in mind, the universe is also constricted by causality and conservation of mass.

Meaning that the universe could not have occurred on its own, neither could it have brought about its own existence. As seen in the prior premise, the universe itself could not have fit this role, as the universe had a beginning, runs on finite energy and could not have willed itself into existence.

The universe itself has an age and a beginning, hence cannot fit this role. Furthermore, this cause must be without space or form, as that is quantity of the universe. This cause must, in short, transcend all prior assertions of causality. To do so would also require enormous, incomprehensible power.

Later deductions from the argument flow in a rationally valid progression, therefore, this proves the soudness of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. That concludes my arguments for this round, onto you Con ; Report this Argument Con Thanks to Pro for establishing this debate.

I look forward to a productive and civil dialogue. First, we should clarify what exactly follows if Pro has the burden of proof. The burden of proof allows the voters to determine who will win the arguments score if both debaters argue equally well.

For example, if Pro and Con are equally convincing and the burden of proof is on Pro, then Pro loses the debate.

How convincing is the kalam argument

Pro, on the other hand, has to offer arguments which are more convincing than mine in order to win. Pro defends his first premise by pointing out that when scientists try to explain physical events, they assume a cause and effect relationship.

An encyclopedia of philosophy articles written by professional philosophers.

Because scientists assume a cause and effect relationship, then there must be a law saying all physical events have a cause and effect. However, this argument does not reflect current thinking in science.

All of the numbers cancel out except for a universe with features our universe possesses. For example, contains intelligent organisms such as humans. This remaining universe has a certain probability very high -- near to a hundred percent -- of coming into existence uncaused.

My contention is that because we do not have a complete scientific theory on the origins of the universe, Pro cannot use science to prove that the universe must have had a beginning.

How convincing is the kalam argument

In other words, general relativity is successful on some scales, but not all scales, thus invalidating it as a candidate for a complete explanation of the origin of the universe.

Obviously, an incomplete theory of the universe does not share a one-to-one correspondence to physical reality. General relativity is incomplete because it does not apply to the quantum mechanical scale. While relativity assumes the principle of locality, quantum mechanics is rife with non-locality, entailing that relativity does not apply to the quantum scale http: Since relativity does not apply to the quantum scale, it does not apply to all scales, entailing that relativity is an incomplete theory of the universe and therefore untrue.

Scientists recognize that while relativity is predictively successful in many respects, it is not a true explanation of the origins of the universe because it does not apply to the quantum scale, inspiring their long-standing search for a quantum gravity theory to marry the two together.

Quantum gravity models, which are theoretically complete, explain the origins of the universe and combine relativity with quantum mechanics.

According to some quantum gravity models, the universe had a beginning, while others affirm an eternal universe. The universe had a cause, therefore the cause of the universe is god. First, referring back to quantum gravity models, we have many scientific theories which explain the origins of the universe without god.

There are many famous examples being considered as we speak: These explanations are equally as plausible as god. Although they are scientifically tentative models, god is not even a scientific model to begin with, nonetheless a tentative one.

Just like god, there are no a priori philosophical reasons to rule out these models. The universe could have been brought into being by infinite simultaneous causation of elementary particles.

Simultaneous causation is the idea that "the causal order must not be the temporal order because of the possibility of cause and effect being contemporaneous. X and Y have such a relationship if X, the cause, and Y, the effect, happen at the same instantaneous moment.The first post of the 'The God Series' examines the most popular argument for God's existence, namely the Kalam Cosmological Argument or the argument from the universe needing a first cause.

· Cosmological Argument Page 3 of 5 himself in the following quote: “There could be no simpler explanation than one which postulates only one cause. Theism is simpler than polytheism.” (B) Consider the view that the strengths are more and persuasive proof for the existence of God is The Kalam Cosmological Argument based on the impossibility of an infinite temporal regress of events.

Jan 27,  · If Jan would prefer to put his own argument for the existence of God, I suggest that he does that in a separate thread, after we have finished the current discussion about the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Kalam premises are not convincing because it seems to be applying collective force especially the last kalam premise, hence it is more than logical to make a conclusion that the world has a cause.

We will write a custom essay sample on In Defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument specifically for you. for only $ $/page. Order now. Then Kalam's argument will be convincing; but until then, the assertions are unproven and so there is no reason to take it seriously. The default state is uncertainty about the 'cause' of the universe (or whatever other mechanism may exist).

Kant’s Critique of the Traditional Arguments for the Existence of God - Adelaide Chapter