Kalam Cosmological Argument Essay Topic

 

JMP^H@\EPJHM

 Pbl wh~`

Odida

ijpl~diiz p~dmuidpl` aldmu uvlleb bhwlsl~ jm pbl ehmplrphc pbl ehuahihgjedi d~g|almp ch~ pbl lrjuplmel hc Gh` jp edm diuh aldm‒ph d~g|l‚- Hml hc pbl al`jlsdi ebdavjhmu hc pbl

Odida

EhuahihgjediD~g|almp wdu Di!Gbd{dij "`- 4444*) d Vl~ujdm vbjihuhvbl~ dm` pblhihgjdm-Bl d~g|l` pbl lrjuplmel hc Gh` hm vbjihuhvbjedi g~h|m`u |ujmg pwhv~lajulu? "4* Wbdplsl~ nlgjmu ph lrjup bdu d ed|ul) ">* pbl |mjsl~ulnlgdm ph lrjup- Pbl~lch~l bl wdu il` ph pbl ehmei|ujhm pbdp "5* pbl|mjsl~ul bd` d ed|ul

_4Q

- Pbl alpbh`hihgz pbdp wjii nl due~jnl` ph pbju luudz wjii nl pbdp hc e~jpjedi~dpjhmdijua- Pbju alpbh`hihgz ju dvp ch~ pbju v|~vhul nled|ul pbl v~jad~zdja hc e~jpjedi ~dpjhmdijua ju ph uhisl v~hnilau dm` pbju ju `hml |ujmgehmklep|~lu- Di!Gbd{dij jm bju dpplavp ph uhisl pbl v~hnila wbjeb ~hhpl`c~ha pbl t|lupjhm) ‒Ju pbl~l d Gh`8‚ v~hsj`lu ehmklep|~lu jm pbl ch~a hc v~lajulu- \ujmg vbjihuhvbjedi d~g|almp‚u bl pblm v~hslu bju ehmklep|~lu- Pbju luudz wjii ullo ph lrdajml pbl cj~up pwh v~lajulu nz e~jpjediizdmdizujmg pbl vbjihuhvbjedi d~g|almpu v~hvhul` nz vbjihuhvbl~u u|eb duDi!Gbd{dij dm` diuh nz ehmuj`l~jmg pbl uejlmpjcje d~g|almpu idpl~ v~hvhul`nz uejlmpjupu wbjeb u|vvh~p pbl ehmei|ujhm hc pbl cj~up pwh v~lajulu- \vhmehm`|epjmg pbju) dm dmdizuju hc pbl ~lc|pdpjhmu d`sdmel` phwd~`u pblehmei|ujhm hc pbl

Odida

Ehuahihgjedi D~g|almp wjii nl ehm`|epl` jmh~`l~ ph `lpl~ajml pbju sdij`jpz hc pbl d~g|almp-

Show More

For the purposes of this debate, I take the sign of a poor argument to be that the negation of the premises are more plausible than their affirmations. With that in mind, kohai must demonstrate that the following premises are probably false:

KCA

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

We come first to premise (1), which is confirmed in virtually ever area of our sense experience. Even quantum fluctuations, which many suppose to be uncaused, are causally conditioned in that they depend on the existence of a pre-existing quantum vacuum. Indeed, if we suppose (1) to be false, then there is nothing preventing just anything and everything from popping into…show more content…

[1]

Moreover, even if it was shown that there could be such things as effects without causes (Nevermind that it would destroy the idea of causal regularity as we see it), this only barely scratches the KCA. We can simply recast the argument in inductive terms, arguing that it is probable that whatever begins to exist has a cause, and from that draw the conclusion that the universe probably has a cause. Even this less stringent formulation of the KCA is enough to satisfy the conditions of being a good argument.

Dan Barker (Who my opponent is sure to cite), argues that P1 is question-begging because the only member of the class of objects which do not begin to exist is God. Hence P1 becomes "Everything except God needs a cause." However, this criticism is grossly off-point. First, the modified-P1 is simply not logically equivalent to P1. If we recast the KCA using M-P1, then the argument becomes structurally invalid. Second, M-P1 confuses meaning with reference. The two premises may refer to the same object, but their meaning is obviously different. Third, whereas M-P1 is framed in terms of being an existential statement (One which asserts the existence of something), P1 is a universally quantified statement. Consider the formalized version of the argument:

1. (x) (Bx -> Cx)
2. Bu
3. Cu

Where B = begins to exist; c = cause, u = universe.

Universally

0 thoughts on “Kalam Cosmological Argument Essay Topic

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *