Cosmological argument

What is the cosmological argument based on?

• All things in the universe are contingent and don’t contain within them the reason for their own existence, so need something contingent to explain them.

• All things in the universe are contingent and don’t contain within them the reason for their own existence, so need something necessary to explain them.

• All things in the universe are necessary and don’t contain within them the reason for their own existence, so need something necessary to explain them.

• All things in the universe are contingent and contain within them the reason for their own existence, so need something contingent to explain them.

Explain Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason

• 1. Nothing takes place without their being sufficient reason for it. 2. As everything in the world is contingent, to have sufficient reason, we must get back to something that it not contingent. 3. This non contingent sufficient reason must exist outside of the world and the best explanation for it is god.

• 1. Nothing takes place without their being sufficient reason for it. 2. As everything in the world is necessary, to have sufficient reason, we must get back to something that it not contingent. 3. This non contingent sufficient reason must exist outside of the world and the best explanation for it is god.

• 1. Nothing takes place without their being sufficient reason for it. 2. As everything in the world is contingent, to have sufficient reason, we must get back to something that it contingent. 3. This contingent sufficient reason must exist outside of the world and the best explanation for it is god.

• 1. Nothing takes place without their being sufficient reason for it. 2. As everything in the world is contingent, to have sufficient reason, we must get back to something that it not contingent. 3. This non contingent sufficient reason must exist outside of the world and the best explanation for it is chance.

What is the background to the Kalam cosmological argument?

• Developed by 10th century Islamic scholastic al ghazali, reimagined and updated by 21st century Christian philosopher William lane Craig.

• Devoloped by 11th century Islamic scholastic al ghazali, reimagined and updated by 21st century Christian philosopher William lane Craig.

• Developed by 10th century Islamic scholastic al ghazali, reimagined and updated by 20th century Christian philosopher William lane Craig.

• Developed by 11th century Islamic scholastic al ghazali, reimagined and updated by 20th century Christian philosopher William lane Craig.

What are the four premises of the kalam argument?

• 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Ergo, the universe must have a cause. 4. The cause must be god, this is a deductive argument that reasons from the general to the specific.

• 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe did not begin to exist. 3. Ergo, the universe must have a cause. 4. The cause must be god, this is a deductive argument that reasons from the general to the specific.

• 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Ergo, the universe must have a cause. 4. The cause must be not god, this is a deductive argument that reasons from the general to the specific.

• 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Ergo, the universe must have a cause. 4. The cause must be god, this is an inductive argument that reasons from the general to the specific.

Explain Craig’s use of the third law of thermodynamics

• 1. In an isolated system the state of entropy (the amount of unusable energy) increases with time and never decreases. 2. The universe of the past had much less entropy then it has now. 3. A universe which existed forever could not be now in the present state of disequilibrium. 4. Ergo, the universe began to exist.

• 1. In an isolated system the state of entropy (the amount of unusable energy) decreases with time and never increases. 2. The universe of the past had much less entropy then it has now. 3. A universe which existed forever could not be now in the present state of disequilibrium. 4. Ergo, the universe began to exist.

• 1. In an isolated system the state of entropy (the amount of unusable energy) increases with time and never decreases. 2. The universe of the past had much less entropy then it has now. 3. A universe which existed forever could be now in the present state of disequilibrium. 4. Ergo, the universe did not begin to exist.

• 1. In an isolated system the state of entropy (the amount of usable energy) increases with time and never decreases. 2. The universe of the past had much less entropy then it has now. 3. A universe which existed forever could not be now in the present state of disequilibrium. 4. Ergo, the universe began to exist.

What is Aristotle’s cosmological argument?

• 1. Either the universe had an ultimate cause, or no ultimate cause. 2. If the universe had no ultimate cause, then the chain of cause and effect had a beginning. 3. This is impossible, if the chain of cause and effect had no beginning, there would be no chain! 4. Ergo, the universe must have an ultimate cause. This uses reductio ad absurdum.

• 1. Either the universe had an ultimate cause, or no ultimate cause. 2. If the universe had no ultimate cause, then the chain of cause and effect had no beginning. 3. This is impossible, if the chain of cause and effect had no beginning, there would be no chain! 4. Ergo, the universe must have an ultimate cause. This uses reductio ad absurdum.

• 1. Either the universe had an ultimate cause, or no ultimate cause. 2. If the universe had no ultimate cause, then the chain of cause and effect had no beginning. 3. This is impossible, if the chain of cause and effect had no beginning, there would be no chain! 4. Ergo, the universe must have no ultimate cause. This uses reductio ad absurdum.

• 1. Either the universe had an ultimate cause, or no ultimate cause. 2. If the universe had no ultimate cause, then the chain of cause and effect had no beginning. 3. This is possible, if the chain of cause and effect had no beginning, there would be no chain! 4. Ergo, the universe must have an ultimate cause. This uses reductio ad absurdum.

The main problem with the kalam argument is that is supposes a—, how did the universe begin, what is its cause? Modern astrophysics suggests the Big Bang.

What are aquinas’ cosmological arguments?

• Motion, cause, contingency, inductive arguments which use reductio ad absurdum to show the fallacy of infinite regress.

• Motion, cause, contingency, inductive arguments which use abductive arguments to show the fallacy of infinite regress.

• Motion, cause, continuity, inductive arguments which use reductio ad absurdum to show the fallacy of infinite regress.

• Median, cause, contingency, inductive arguments which use reductio ad absurdum to show the fallacy of infinite regress.

What are the four premises of from motion?

• 1. There are things in the universe in a state of motion. 2. Something can change by itself, they are all secondary movers. 3. If all things were secondary movers there would be an infinite regress of movers. 4. If this is true, there would be no prime mover, so no secondary movers. C. There are secondary movers, so there must be an unmoved prime mover.

• 1. There are things in the universe in a state of motion. 2. Nothing can change by itself, they are all secondary movers. 3. If all things were secondary movers there would be an infinite regress of movers. 4. If this is true, there would be no prime mover, so no secondary movers. C. There are secondary movers, so there must be no unmoved prime mover.

• 1. There are things in the universe in a state of motion. 2. Nothing can change by itself, they are all secondary movers. 3. If all things were secondary movers there would be an infinite regress of movers. 4. If this is true, there would be a prime mover, so some secondary movers. C. There are secondary movers, so there must be an unmoved prime mover.

• 1. There are things in the universe in a state of motion. 2. Nothing can change by itself, they are all secondary movers. 3. If all things were secondary movers there would be an infinite regress of movers. 4. If this is true, there would be no prime mover, so no secondary movers. C. There are secondary movers, so there must be an unmoved prime mover.

What are the four premises of from cause?

• 1. Every event has a cause. 2. Nothing can be its own cause. 3. If the order of causes goes back to infinity, there would be no first cause. 4. If there was no first cause, there would be no causes at all, this is false. C. There must not be a first cause- god.

• 1. Every event has a cause. 2. Nothing can be its own cause. 3. If the order of causes goes back to infinity, there would be no first cause. 4. If there was no first cause, there would be no causes at all, this is false. C. There must be a first cause- god.

• 1. Every event has a cause. 2. Nothing can be its own cause. 3. If the order of causes goes back to infinity, there would be no first cause. 4. If there was no first cause, there would be no causes at all, this is false. C. There must be a first cause- this is not god.

• 1. Every event has a cause. 2. Nothing can be its own cause. 3. If the order of causes goes back to infinity, there would be no first cause. 4. If there was a first cause, there would be loads of causes. C. There must be a first cause- god.