The cosmological argument for God’s existence is one of the most revered of the classical arguments for theism. Throughout history, it has found defenders from Aristotle to Aquinas to Leibniz, to name a few. There are actually three main variations of the cosmological argument: the kalam argument for a temporal first cause of the universe, the Thomistic argument for some ultimate ground of ontological being, and the Leibnizian argument for a necessary explanation of why the universe exists at all. In this paper I will be presenting and defending what I think to be the most effective theistic argument, the kalam cosmological argument as originally formulated by Al-Ghazali and later by Stuart Hackett and William Lane Craig:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
First, I will give reasons to accept each premiss and the conclusion. Then, I will present and answer the strongest objections to the …show more content…
Time elapses in a successive fashion, with one event taking place after another. However, despite this immediate plausibility, this premiss crucially depends on particular theory of time being true, specifically the A-theory of time, as John McTaggart calls it. On such a theory of time, temporal becoming is objective and real. Objects and events really do come into being and go out of being as time elapses. Contrast this with the B-theory of time, which affirms that temporal becoming is illusory, and the past, present, and future are all co-existing. Clearly, the temporal series of events is not formed by successive addition if the B-theory is true because all events, past, present, and future, exist concomitantly. Because an assessment of these theories of time is beyond the scope of this paper, I will simply remark that much can be said by way of defense for the A-theory of time and that Einstein’s theory of special relativity is compatible with the
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
First, I will give reasons to accept each premiss and the conclusion. Then, I will present and answer the strongest objections to the …show more content…
Time elapses in a successive fashion, with one event taking place after another. However, despite this immediate plausibility, this premiss crucially depends on particular theory of time being true, specifically the A-theory of time, as John McTaggart calls it. On such a theory of time, temporal becoming is objective and real. Objects and events really do come into being and go out of being as time elapses. Contrast this with the B-theory of time, which affirms that temporal becoming is illusory, and the past, present, and future are all co-existing. Clearly, the temporal series of events is not formed by successive addition if the B-theory is true because all events, past, present, and future, exist concomitantly. Because an assessment of these theories of time is beyond the scope of this paper, I will simply remark that much can be said by way of defense for the A-theory of time and that Einstein’s theory of special relativity is compatible with the