What did you think of Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument? Did you think it was a sound argument? Why or why not?
Craig Kalam’s Cosmological argument argues in favor of the existence of God. The premises for the argument are as follows,
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
In essence, how could the universe (something) suddenly appear out of nothing? His argument claims that it is not possible, as God, an omnipotent being who, without the universe, remains timeless and unchanging, existed as the original cause of the universe. As an agnostic, I hesitate to say with any certainty whether there is an all-powerful creator who set the events of the universe in motion, …show more content…
In other words, because human artifacts so closely resemble the more complicated universe a higher intelligent being must have created the universal for humans to model their intelligent design after. Hume, on the other hand, argues that the universe does not appear sufficiently similar enough to human design to support this premise. Additionally, there exist no other universes for us to compare this assumption too. Therefore, we cannot gain a definitive answer on whether the universe was designed by a creator or merely developed on its own. Finally, Hume argued, that the universe is as full of disorder as it is order, therefore the argument for a grand designer remains weak. Unfortunately, I failed to understand Paley’s assertions that human artifacts closely resemble the universe and are therefore the product of a higher intelligence creating the perceived order of the universe. If we can allow the idea that an original creator created the universe in a certain way for humans to eventually discover and mimic, why can we not assume the universe simply exists the way it does and we have only studied and learned enough about it to mimic its original
Craig Kalam’s Cosmological argument argues in favor of the existence of God. The premises for the argument are as follows,
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
In essence, how could the universe (something) suddenly appear out of nothing? His argument claims that it is not possible, as God, an omnipotent being who, without the universe, remains timeless and unchanging, existed as the original cause of the universe. As an agnostic, I hesitate to say with any certainty whether there is an all-powerful creator who set the events of the universe in motion, …show more content…
In other words, because human artifacts so closely resemble the more complicated universe a higher intelligent being must have created the universal for humans to model their intelligent design after. Hume, on the other hand, argues that the universe does not appear sufficiently similar enough to human design to support this premise. Additionally, there exist no other universes for us to compare this assumption too. Therefore, we cannot gain a definitive answer on whether the universe was designed by a creator or merely developed on its own. Finally, Hume argued, that the universe is as full of disorder as it is order, therefore the argument for a grand designer remains weak. Unfortunately, I failed to understand Paley’s assertions that human artifacts closely resemble the universe and are therefore the product of a higher intelligence creating the perceived order of the universe. If we can allow the idea that an original creator created the universe in a certain way for humans to eventually discover and mimic, why can we not assume the universe simply exists the way it does and we have only studied and learned enough about it to mimic its original