Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    The first premise of the kalām cosmological argument is f... — Carmelics
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The first premise of the kalām cosmological argument is false.

    Natural Theology
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Quantum mechanics demonstrates that virtual particles come into existence without prior causes, violating causal closure at the microphysical level.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Lawrence Krauss and David Albert's debate over 'nothing' shows that the causal principle generalizes illegitimately from macro-experience to cosmological origins.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If causation is a concept derived from temporal succession within the universe, it cannot coherently apply to the universe's own origin ex nihilo.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hume's critique in the Enquiry establishes that causal necessity is a psychological habit, not a metaphysically binding principle governing all possible states of affairs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Graham Oppy's modal skepticism shows that the kalam premise 'everything that begins to exist has a cause' lacks the epistemic warrant needed for a sound cosmological argument.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The kalām cosmological argument's conclusion (that God caused the beginning of the universe) is false.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the conclusion of a valid argument is false, at least one premise must be false.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The first premise of the kalām argument is the most likely candidate to be false given Davies's account of the universe's self-contained origin.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Natural Theology

    Related

    Graham Oppy's modal skepticism shows that the kalam premise 'everything that beg...Hume's critique in the Enquiry establishes that causal necessity is a psychologi...If causation is a concept derived from temporal succession within the universe, ...If the conclusion of a valid argument is false, at least one premise must be fal...
    +4 moreShow less
    Lawrence Krauss and David Albert's debate over 'nothing' shows that the causal p...Quantum mechanics demonstrates that virtual particles come into existence withou...The first premise of the kalām argument is the most likely candidate to be false...The kalām cosmological argument's conclusion (that God caused the beginning of t...

    Similar

    The kalām cosmological argument's conclusion (that God caused the begi...86%The first premise of the kalām argument is the most likely candidate t...85%The cosmological argument is defective.85%The cosmological argument can only establish an ultimate ground or fir...83%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: cosmological-argument
    View source passageHide passage
    Paul Davies argues that one need not appeal to God to account for the Big Bang. Its cause, he suggests, is found within the cosmic system itself. Originally a vacuum lacking space-time dimensions, the universe “found itself in an excited vacuum state”, a “ferment of quantum activity, teeming with virtual particles and full of complex interactions” (Davies 1984: 191–92), which, subject to a cosmic repulsive force, resulted in an immense increase in energy. Subsequent explosions from this collapsi
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit