Criticisms of the Cosmological Argument (RS A-level)

Here, we will examine some of the criticisms of the Cosmological Arguments proposed by David Hume and Bertrand Russell.
Perfect for the study of A-level Religious Studies / Philosophy

[@mw-hc3bt]

This was super helpful, the way you explained it all was very accessable. Thank you!

[@harryrero]

this was very useful, thanks!

[@Ali124hdkflc]

So good

[@dod-do-or-dont]

From when Craig is philosopher, maybe in theological sense?
If Craig can presuppose necessary being, then i presuppose necessary infinite descent

[@mbitukoruamurumbua3107]

How about the argument of Thomas Aquinas which asserts in Summa Theologica, that everything must have a cause except God?

[@dod-do-or-dont]

This is actually Kalam, extended, Craig also uses its new version and he fails

[@Wakamolewonder]

Whether god is external to the universe or god is the universe, it begs the question what created the ever changing components within the universe? It still takes you all the way back to a first cause. That first cause must be uncaused. It would have to be independent of its components and outside of physics. It would have to be supernatural by definition.

[@jackplumbridge2704]

Since when has any cosmological argument ever claimed that everything has a cause?
The first premise of the Kalam cosmological argument states: "If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause of its beginning".
The first premise of the contingency argument states: "Everything that exists has an EXPLANATION of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause".