# Cosmological argument



## T.A.G. (Jun 11, 2010)

Does anyone here adhere to it? What would be the best book to get or best article/video to read and watch on it? I am looking for a defense of it in reference to some of the classical critiques of it and as well as the newer critiques such as YouTube - Why the Kalam Cosmological Argument Fails


I am debating if this is a valid argument and I keep switching if it is or is not. 

ps. This is why I am a pressup guy  hehe


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jun 11, 2010)

T.A.G. said:


> Does anyone here adhere to it? What would be the best book to get or best article/video to read and watch on it? I am looking for a defense of it in reference to some of the classical critiques of it and as well as the newer critiques such as YouTube - Why the Kalam Cosmological Argument Fails
> 
> 
> I am debating if this is a valid argument and I keep switching if it is or is not.
> ...


 
I hold to it. I began to buy in once I read Amazon.com: The Clarity of God's Existence: The Ethics of Belief After the

Basically, if you hold to natural theology, then I think some form of these type of arguments should work.

As far as that video goes, one would have to hold that the universe was some inevitable result of the the quantum fluctuation. They would also have to argue that the quantum energy has the properties of being eternal, because no one can reasonably question premise one of the kalam argument.

CT


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 11, 2010)

I for one don't give it much credence because it rests on an assumption of causality. I mean where does our idea of causality come from? If it is induction than that is a formal fallacy if it is deduction than it is merely abstract in nature. Sproul's thoughts on the cosmological argument would be a fine example of the errors of deduction in this.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jun 11, 2010)

jwright82 said:


> I for one don't give it much credence because it rests on an assumption of causality. I mean where does our idea of causality come from? If it is induction than that is a formal fallacy if it is deduction than it is merely abstract in nature. Sproul's thoughts on the cosmological argument would be a fine example of the errors of deduction in this.


 
I think it is simply incoherent to say something was caused by nothing.

CT


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 11, 2010)

ChristianTrader said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> > I for one don't give it much credence because it rests on an assumption of causality. I mean where does our idea of causality come from? If it is induction than that is a formal fallacy if it is deduction than it is merely abstract in nature. Sproul's thoughts on the cosmological argument would be a fine example of the errors of deduction in this.
> ...


 
I'm not saying that something was caused by nothing, what I'm saying is that a critic can chalenge the basic idea of the whole argument by asking you to define how you came about your beleif in causality itself. Or to say it a different way why believe that causality is anything other tha a illusion or social convention and not th way things are. We beleivers have a definant foundation for the idea of causality in pressupossing God not proving Him from causality.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jun 12, 2010)

jwright82 said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> > jwright82 said:
> ...


 
I would just simply say that causation is not accepted due to social convention etc. It is accepted because it is presupposed in all activity that one does. To doubt it is equivalent to doubting that knowledge is possible.

CT


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 12, 2010)

Craig's book, _Reasonable Faith_, is a good read, despite his Molinism, etc. Buy it from Crossway and you get the pdf version as well.  I wish more publishers offered this benefit.

I think he also has something forthcoming on the KCA. See his web site:

Reasonable Faith

Also see:
A Swift and Simple Refutation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument?

AMR


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 12, 2010)

> It is accepted because it is presupposed in all activity that one does. To doubt it is equivalent to doubting that knowledge is possible.



Well presupossing it is a good thing but the question is raised as to why presuposse it? Why is there such regularity in nature at all? Only theism can account for this regularity by presupossing God as the supreme regulator. But your are correct to presuposse it.


----------



## cih1355 (Jun 12, 2010)

J.P. Moreland in his book, _Scaling the Secular City_, discusses the cosmological argument. 

Here are some links to William Lane Craig's cosmological argument

The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe

The Caused Beginning of the Universe: A Response to Quentin Smith


----------

