Introduction In this paper, I will argue that Dr. William Craig and Al-Ghazali have both valid and sound arguments about the existence of the universe. In The Kalam Cosmological Argument (2000), Dr. Craig explains and evaluates, and later defends, Ghazali’s cosmological argument. The Kalam Cosmological argument is constructed as follows:
(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.
Craig’s claims, through his careful evaluation of Ghazali’s argument, that there are sufficient grounds to believe that there is a creator of the universe and the universe was created a finite time ago. After doing some of my own personal research as well …show more content…
Since this premise is more widely disagreed upon, Craig uses both two philosophical and two scientific forms of arguments to defend premise two. Some well-detailed and documented evidence to support premise two include: the big bang theory and the second law of thermodynamics. Both of these theories have sufficient evidence to support the universe as having an absolute beginning. One argument especially noteworthy from Dr. Craig is the example of Hilbert’s Hotel to better describe “potential infinity” versus “actual infinity.” (Craig, 2000) To imagine a universe with a finite number of past events is similar to imagine a hotel with a finite number of rooms available to guests. To imagine a universe with an infinite number of past events is also similar to imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms available. However, imagining these things (potential) is much different than if I were to ask you to make these thing possible in reality (actual). How would you go about building a hotel with an infinite number of rooms? Similarly, how could you construct a universe with an infinite number of past events? This illustration helps put meaning behind the word infinite. Infinite: a word I previously only imagined to be inconceivable, I now consider unachievable, if needed to be carried out. This philosophical argument helps to obtain a truth to premise two of the Kalam Cosmological …show more content…
Morriston critiques premise one on the basis that Craig blindly states that something cannot come into existence without a cause. Morriston goes on to say “Craig jumps to the conclusion that the same goes for the universe” (Morriston, 2013, p. 16). Morriston claims that we cannot assume that things can come to exist without a cause just because it would be difficult to explain (Morriston, 2013, p.17). Just because it is out of our range to imagine such an event, does not mean the possibility is not there. I can appreciate this counterargument against premise one because Morriston changed the perspective for me. Previously, I considered all things to exist because of a measureable or definable cause. However, there may be unimaginable events where this could be
(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.
Craig’s claims, through his careful evaluation of Ghazali’s argument, that there are sufficient grounds to believe that there is a creator of the universe and the universe was created a finite time ago. After doing some of my own personal research as well …show more content…
Since this premise is more widely disagreed upon, Craig uses both two philosophical and two scientific forms of arguments to defend premise two. Some well-detailed and documented evidence to support premise two include: the big bang theory and the second law of thermodynamics. Both of these theories have sufficient evidence to support the universe as having an absolute beginning. One argument especially noteworthy from Dr. Craig is the example of Hilbert’s Hotel to better describe “potential infinity” versus “actual infinity.” (Craig, 2000) To imagine a universe with a finite number of past events is similar to imagine a hotel with a finite number of rooms available to guests. To imagine a universe with an infinite number of past events is also similar to imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms available. However, imagining these things (potential) is much different than if I were to ask you to make these thing possible in reality (actual). How would you go about building a hotel with an infinite number of rooms? Similarly, how could you construct a universe with an infinite number of past events? This illustration helps put meaning behind the word infinite. Infinite: a word I previously only imagined to be inconceivable, I now consider unachievable, if needed to be carried out. This philosophical argument helps to obtain a truth to premise two of the Kalam Cosmological …show more content…
Morriston critiques premise one on the basis that Craig blindly states that something cannot come into existence without a cause. Morriston goes on to say “Craig jumps to the conclusion that the same goes for the universe” (Morriston, 2013, p. 16). Morriston claims that we cannot assume that things can come to exist without a cause just because it would be difficult to explain (Morriston, 2013, p.17). Just because it is out of our range to imagine such an event, does not mean the possibility is not there. I can appreciate this counterargument against premise one because Morriston changed the perspective for me. Previously, I considered all things to exist because of a measureable or definable cause. However, there may be unimaginable events where this could be