Thread for opening debate about my claim.

[fskiddles]

My claim being the same as the Kalam cosmological argument.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe had a beginning.
Therefore the universe has a cause.
This cause is God.

 

[RC1970]

My claim being the same as the Kalam cosmological argument.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe had a beginning.
Therefore the universe has a cause.
This cause is God.

Your argument is valid.
But, how do you defend the premise that "The universe had a beginning", and the secondary conclusion that the "cause" is God?

 

[jax5434]

My claim being the same as the Kalam cosmological argument.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe had a beginning.
Therefore the universe has a cause.
This cause is God.

The way you presented your syllogism is not the same as the Kalam. The Kalam Cosmological argument is this:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
2. The universe began to exist;
3. Therefore:
4. The universe has a cause.

Your last statement "This cause is God" is not a conclusion from the KCA but is a new premise requiring a new syllogism.
God Bless
Jax
This is a sound argument but does not necessarily

 

[fskiddles]

Alexander Vilenkin's therom
General Relativity
Hubble redshift from distant galaxies
Aftermath of the bigbang
The philisophical impossibility of an infinite

Do you disagree?

 

[jax5434]

Alexander Vilenkin's therom
General Relativity
Hubble redshift from distant galaxies
Aftermath of the bigbang
The philisophical impossibility of an infinite

Do you disagree?

I do not disagree with any of those things. But none of those things in and of themselves establish God as First Cause. All of them can be used, perhaps, as part of a cumulative argument establishing that God as First Cause is more likely than not.
However none of these things are part of the KCA. I do not disagree with your conclusion, I am simply saying that in presenting these arguments you can not use the KCA as your primary syllogism.
God Bless
Jax

 

[fskiddles]

What do you mean? I was just trying to support the premises of the KCA with those theory and princepals. Hod bless.

 

[JackRT]

The universe began to exist;

Did it? Did it really? If you can hypothesize an eternal supernatural being that cannot be observed or measured then I can hypothesize with equal validity a observable, measurable universe that has existed from eternity. The Big Bang of 14 billion years ago does not negate that there was nothing before.

 

[Everybodyknows]

Did it? Did it really? If you can hypothesize an eternal supernatural being that cannot be observed or measured then I can hypothesize with equal validity a observable, measurable universe that has existed from eternity. The Big Bang of 14 billion years ago does not negate that there was nothing before.

Whichever way you look at it there is a requirement of something existing eternally or timelessly.

 

[jax5434]

First of all the KCA is not my hypothesis. If it were it would be called the Jax Cosmological Argument. 2ndly I am not the OP. He is looking for debate not I.
God Bless
Jax

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

My claim being the same as the Kalam cosmological argument.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe had a beginning.
Therefore the universe has a cause.
This cause is God.

Perhaps the most ironic thing about the argument is that many if not most adherents of the argument do not believe God caused much else, because they also tend to hold to the notion of libertarian free will. Causality is such an undeniable fact, even non-Christians will concede to the law of causality, of cause and effect. The non-Christian can agree to the first three lines, and call the forth arbitrary injunction. The primary problem with the traditional arguments is that none of them begin to bring a person close to a full conception of God, the Triune God of Biblical Christianity.