The Kalam Cosmological Argument

188 posts / 0 new
Last post
Joshb's picture
The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Hi i'm Josh and I am new to Atheist Republic.

I am a Theist but want to learn more about Atheism, especially about its response to the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I'm sure this is an argument most of us have heard of before and would like to hear some of your responses to it. In case anyone does not know the argument, it goes like this:

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause

To further explain premise one, it is important to understand the Law of Causality, which means that every effect in our universe has a cause. Nowhere in our universe do things move, change, or begin to exist without a cause. Also, it is impossible to have a being come from a non-being (by being I mean something that has existence). In other words, every being that has a beginning is dependent upon another being for its existence.

Premise two is based in various scientific discoveries and principals. These include the Second Law of Thermodynamics, universal red shift, radiation afterglow, galaxy seeds, and the logical impossibility of infinite regress. These can easily be found online so I wont go into detail but am happy to explain if needed.

With these two premises, the conclusion must be that the universe had a cause for its existence. Understand that I am not arguing that this cause is God but this cause must be uncaused, outside of, and independent of the universe. I am curious about your responses and open to discussion/ any questions you may have.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Josh - ...want to learn more
Tin-Man's picture
Re: What "caused" our
Cognostic's picture
@Josh: Kalam: The Kalam
Sheldon's picture
1. We can only apply cause
TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
I see something wrong in what
boomer47's picture
I'm very fond of Occam's
TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
At least one competent
boomer47's picture
I take your point about
TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
I don't believe it to be an
Cognostic's picture
@Josh: Here is a side
David Killens's picture
Josh, you will have to prove
Cognostic's picture
@David Killens: He he he
CyberLN's picture
Josh, I’ll comment on just
Joshb's picture
@ Cognostic
David Killens's picture
@Josh
Nyarlathotep's picture
John - Think of it as an
Cognostic's picture
@Josh: I made no such
David Killens's picture
@Josh
Sheldon's picture
Josh " I have ruled out the
LogicFTW's picture
@Josh
Nyarlathotep's picture
The "law of causality" is not
Cognostic's picture
@Nyarlathotep: Law of
Cognostic's picture
@Nyarlathotep: Are you
Nyarlathotep's picture
Cognostic - @Nyarlathotep:
Cognostic's picture
@Nyarlathotep: No Problem..
Nyarlathotep's picture
Cognostic - I still know of
chimp3's picture
Josh: "With these two
Joshb's picture
@ Cognostic
Nyarlathotep's picture
Josh - ...there must be a
Joshb's picture
I completely understand.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.