Do you agree with the Kalaam Cosmological Argument?

[YeshuaRedeemed]

I think it makes sense even if I were a different type of religion because as the argument states, everything that has a beginning also has a cause. Even if you reject the Bible or have no religion at all, do you think an intelligent designer being the cause of what I will call nature for the sake of neutrality is a real probability. What do you think?

 

[Audie]

This philosophers uses it to prove god, that
one proves he is wrong.

Who cares?

 

[Sunstone]

The Kalaam argument is essentially medieval thinking, and has a number of problems. Here's the argument in its essence:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist (infinities do not exist, so the universe must have at some point begun to exist).
Therefore, the universe had a cause.

One problem is the notion that whatever begins to exist has a cause. Naturally, we cannot assert such to be necessarily true, because we have only the part of the universe we can observe and confirm causes to work with. So the premise is asserted on intuition. But can we apply intuition to the state of affairs before time began with the Big Bang? I think that would be risky, given how much different things were back then.

There are other problems as well, but I think most of them boil down to a lack of empirical evidence in support of the premises

 

[Polymath257]

I think it makes sense even if I were a different type of religion because as the argument states, everything that has a beginning also has a cause. Even if you reject the Bible or have no religion at all, do you think an intelligent designer being the cause of what I will call nature for the sake of neutrality is a real probability. What do you think?

I disagree with three aspects of the Kalam argument:

1. I disagree that everything that begins has a cause. The issue is what it means to be a 'cause'. By the usual conceptualization, most quantum events are not caused.

2. I disagree that an infinite regress is problematic. There is nothing inherently contradictory about having an infinite number of previous causes.

3. There is no reason to assume an uncaused cause is intelligent. If anything, it would make more sense for such NOT to be intelligent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And let's not forget the special pleading fallacy of the creator not needing a maker. If something as complex as the universe needs a creator because it is complex then by the same "logic" the even more complex creator needs a maker.

Rather than start an infinite chain of creators it makes more sense to stop with what we know exists.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think it makes sense even if I were a different type of religion because as the argument states, everything that has a beginning also has a cause. Even if you reject the Bible or have no religion at all, do you think an intelligent designer being the cause of what I will call nature for the sake of neutrality is a real probability. What do you think?

I think that the Kalam cosmological argument:

- relies on sloppy reasoning
- says nothing about whether an intelligent designer or a god might exist

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist (infinities do not exist, so the universe must have at some point begun to exist).
Therefore, the universe had a cause.

The bit you put in brackets is the part that people trying to use kalam to justify a god tend to gloss over: if infinities do not exist, then the infinite god they're arguing for doesn't exist. OTOH, if infinities can exist, then the argument falls apart.

 

[Apologes]

I have my reservations about it but those reservations are hardly caused by the objections you're most likely to hear on the web. (The ones raised in this thread leave much to be desired as well.)

Constructing a decent critique of the argument would require a good grasp on the difficult concepts that it touches on and one's view of the argument will ultimately be based on their view of the more divisive theories it is based on. To me, the greatest cause for doubt would be the dynamic view of time which, while intuitive, seems to be hard to reconcile with certain commonly accepted things. Then again, there's a lot more for me to read on that topic.

Should that question be put aside, I do think the argument is more plausible than not.