Kalem cosmological argument

Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

This is a deductive argument. In this thread you will argue for, or against this argument. I will argue for it.

originally posted by: Thetan
Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

This is a deductive argument. In this thread you will argue for, or against this argument. I will argue for it.

cause and reaction. simple enough.

if 'something' caused the universe, what caused that 'something'?

a reply to: TzarChasm

Do you disagree with the argument?

originally posted by: Thetan
a reply to: TzarChasm

Do you disagree with the argument?

Yes.

But let's for the sake of argument assume it's valid.

What was the cause for the universe's cause for existence?

This is a very old and logically sloppy argument. Are w just going to keep repeating long debunked, infantile arguments in this forum ad nauseum?

a reply to: GetHyped

That isn't an argument.

a reply to: GetHyped

That's the purpose of the thread I think. A thread where answers are more questions. This will become a religious thread no doubt.

originally posted by: Thetan
a reply to: GetHyped

That isn't an argument.

to be perfectly frank, neither is yours. its a supposition that border on hypothetical with the ambition of a theory.

but by all means, lets see where you go with this. its not like we havent seen this song and dance a few hundred times already, who knows, maybe you'll make it interesting.

originally posted by: Thetan
a reply to: GetHyped

That isn't an argument.

originally posted by: Thetan
a reply to: TzarChasm

Do you disagree with the argument?

Ok.

It's YOUR friggin argument repeated back to you.

a reply to: rossacus

No. The purpose of this thread is to argue for or against the argument. I'm going to make another thread after this one which extends the argument to the question of what caused the effect of the universe. Establishing the validity of this argument is the prelude to the auxiliary conclusion. That is, the conclusion which stems from this conclusion.

a reply to: GetHyped

Either argue for it, against it, or don't participate.

originally posted by: Thetan
a reply to: rossacus

No. The purpose of this thread is to argue for or against the argument. I'm going to make another thread after this one which extends the argument to the question of what caused the effect of the universe. Establishing the validity of this argument is the prelude to the auxiliary conclusion. That is, the conclusion which stems from this conclusion.

Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Ok, and what was the cause for the universe's cause? And what was the cause for that? And so on.

Answer the question or end this silly thread.

originally posted by: Thetan
a reply to: rossacus

No. The purpose of this thread is to argue for or against the argument. I'm going to make another thread after this one which extends the argument to the question of what caused the effect of the universe. Establishing the validity of this argument is the prelude to the auxiliary conclusion. That is, the conclusion which stems from this conclusion.

the purpose of this thread is to argue for or against a particular brand of creationism. it would have been nice to include some links to the actual theory - sorry, i meant hypothesis.

The Kalām cosmological argument (sometimes capitalized as Kalam Cosmological Argument; abbreviated KCA) is a modern formulation of the cosmological argument for the existence of God rooted in the Ilm al-Kalam heritage in medieval Islamic scholasticism. An outspoken defender of the argument is William Lane Craig, who first defended it in his book The Kalām Cosmological Argument in 1979. Since then the Kalam cosmological argument has elicited public debate between Craig and Graham Oppy, Adolf Grünbaum, J. L. Mackie and Quentin Smith, and has been used in Christian apologetics.[1] According to Michael Martin, Craig's revised argument is "among the most sophisticated and well argued in contemporary theological philosophy", along with versions of the cosmological argument presented by Bruce Reichenbach and Richard Swinburne.[2]

In defending the argument, Craig has argued against the possibility of the existence of actual infinities, tracing the idea to 11th-century philosopher Al-Ghazali. He named this variant of cosmological argument the Kalam cosmological argument, from Ilm al-Kalām "science of discourse", the Arabic term for the discipline of philosophical theology in Islam.

Craig states the Kalam cosmological argument as a brief syllogism, most commonly rendered as follows:[3]

Everything that begins to exist has a cause;
The universe began to exist;
Therefore:
The universe has a cause.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: GetHyped

Turtles. Turtles all the way down.

a reply to: GetHyped

It isn't necessary to answer that question for the argument to be valid and sound.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Haha! Off topic, but i'll admit, funny. Hindus will be Hindus.

I'm a mason too by the way, but not high level yet.

originally posted by: Thetan
a reply to: GetHyped

It isn't necessary to answer that question for the argument to be valid and sound.

Let me translate:

"BWAAA!!! I made a thread stating an illogical argument and now I'm refusing to engage with people who challenge my crappy logic! BWAAAA!!!"

originally posted by: Thetan
a reply to: GetHyped

It isn't necessary to answer that question for the argument to be valid and sound.

first, we must establish that you would recognize the factors that qualify an argument as valid and sound. because based on what you have presented, that is also in question.

a reply to: Thetan
Well I argue against. If we are gonna do this "does a tree make a sound " type debate then I will say the universe had no beginning and has been eternal, or a never ending cycle of expansion and black holes, never beginning, never ending. As it didn't have a beginning than it doesn't have a cause.

To say a cause it suggests something or someone caused it, always ending up with a deity. Then the question is what caused the deity. Never ending arguement and fundamentally pointless.

originally posted by: Thetan
Haha! Off topic, but i'll admit, funny. Hindus will be Hindus.

Not at all off topic. It deals with the infinite regress scenario you initiated in the Original Post.

a reply to: GetHyped

That isn't an argument and you haven't challenged my logic.