Issues

Monday, July 2, 2012

I Don't Like the First Cause Argument

Wikipedia states the Kalām cosmological argument as

Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
The universe has a beginning of its existence;
Therefore:

The universe has a cause of its existence.

I know that a lot of Christians and Muslims believe in the cosmological argument but I don't really believe in it. I think it is just created by religious people to justify the existence of God.

4 comments:

  1. But why don't you agree with it? Like, what's the objection? It is philosophically sound enough.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am not the first person who disagrees with it. There are people before me that disagree with it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kal%C4%81m_cosmological_argument#Objections_and_criticism

    There are many reasons why I personally disbelieve in it.
    - It is not based on the Quranic teaching
    - It originates from philosophers (Greek philosophers first then Christian apologist)
    - It’s not scientific
    - And it’s not logical enough for me. what is the cause of the first cause?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Salam

      Your objections are irrational.
      - The validity of an argument comes from its own rationality, not whether my Holy Book or your Holy Book says so.
      - That is the genetic fallacy. You are basically saying, if I don't like the speaker I will refuse to accept the speech. Isn't this contrary to what your Imam Ali taught?
      - Nor is mathematics. Will you doubt the truth of the various geometric theorems because they cannot be scientifically tested? There is no 'ideal triangle' in the real world, and hence no real-world triangle has its sum of angles to be 180 degrees. In fact, in the real world, science says there is no Euclidean space, and so all of Euclidean geometry is unempirical, thought obviously true, as all scientists and mathematicians and all educated people agree to without a single notable exception.
      - The 4th objection is worse, because it shows you have not read the argument with any care. It starts by saying 'everything that has a beginning has a cause' and not 'everything has a cause'. Why would something that does not have any sort of beginning - the First Cause - have a cause?
      Finally, that particular argument is one of the weaker arguments for God - 'cause it does not prove the First Cause but just that the universe has a cause. The best are the Argument from Contingency by Avicenna and the Argument from Motion by Aristotle, but it requires much more attention and reason than you have displayed in that comment.

      Delete
  3. I always ask how can something come from nothing. Like what caused the first atom? No where in science does anything come from nothing, but if its the freakin' universe then its allowed lol.

    ReplyDelete

Got something to say?