Please respond to BOTH of these prompts:
1. Choose one of the premises of the kalam cosmological argument, list evidence for and against this premise, and say whether or not you find it reasonable.
2. Choose one of the premises of the contingency cosmological argument, list evidence for and against this premise, and say whether or not you find it reasonable.
K1
ReplyDeleteThe first premise of the Kalam Arugument is very contriversial. Some Arguments for are:
-It seems intuitively correct
-Everyday environment
-Have not always existed
-Brought into existence by something else
Arguemnt Against:
-Radio active decay
-Virtual particles
-Things that begin to exist but we can't pinpoint thier immediate physical cause
I agree with the the arguments for K1 beacause, the counter examples are kind of vauge. The examples ofr the Kalam Argument are more convincing and easier to understand.
For the contingency argument I chose L1. Some arguments for L1 are:
-Everyday observation
-Everyday objects depend for thier existence on other objects and conditions
Their are no arguments against this premise that we came up with in class,and their is a good reason why. Because without one object everyother boject would be thrown out of balance.
Frank Punzi
K2
ReplyDeleteThe universe began to exist.
For: Big Bang(universe had an absolute beginning)
-expansion of the universe
-entropy increasing
We also learned today that a group of scientists confirmed the universe is expanding and that it is expanding at an accelerating pace.
Against: Was the Big Bang really the absolute beginning?
Even though I don't completely agree with either the for or against I feel compelled to agree with the argument for K2 only because it is extremely hard, if not impossible, to imagine what came before the beginning of the universe.
L3
The ultimate explanation for contingent things is a necessary being.
(a being that does not depend on anything outside itself for existence)
For: Contingent thing 1
-to create contingent thing 1, you needed CT2 & CT3, for CT2 & CT3, you needed CT4, CT5, CT6, & CT7...and so on,
Against: So What?
-some people, even most religious people, are perfectly content with not knowing the ultimate explanation for contingent things.
I argue for the CT1 method. I believe that in order to have one being, another had to cause it to happen.
For the Kalam argument, I chose premise two. This premise states that the universe began to exist. A piece of evidence for this premise is that the universe is continuing to expand at this moment, which means that the universe had to of had some starting point. Another piece of evidence is that entropy in the universe is increasing. An argument against this premise is whether or not the Big Bang was actually the absolute beginning of everything. I agree with this premise because I do believe that the universe came into existence and that it had a cause outside of itself
ReplyDeleteFor the contingency argument, I chose premise two. It says that the universe as a whole is contingent. Evidence for this is that the universe seems to be made entirely of contingent things. This means that if the universe is made out of contingent things, then the universe itself is contingent. An argument against this is that the properties of a whole are not necessarily properties of the part. This means that just because what makes up the universe is contingent, it doesn't make the universe contingent. I agree with this premise because I believe that the universe is contingent.
Kalam:
ReplyDeletePremise 2 states that the universe began to exist. This is a very acceptable argument for several reasons. One piece of evidence that supports this is the Big Bang theory; this theory obviously suggests the beginning of everything. Maybe not the ultimate beginning, but it does give a possibly beginning of the expansion of the universe. That leads me to another point; the expansion of the universe. Also, the increasing of entropy. Both instances prove that in order for them to exist, the universe must have begun at one point. If the universe had been existing infinitely, neither would still be increasing.
The only evidence against this premise is the question of whether or not the Big Bang was truly the absolute beginning of the universe.
Contingency:
Premise 1 states that everything contingent has an explanation of its existence outside of itself. Every day observation and intuition serve to prove this premise; everything contingent has been made by something else. The computer I'm typing on was made by a machine, which was made by engineers, who were created by their parents, and so on. If one were to look around a room and try to name how every object was created, one would find that they were creating a very long list of contingent items.
There is really no valid argument or evidence against this premise.
k2
ReplyDeleteFor
big bang
universe had an absolute beginning
expansion of the universe
entropy increasing
Against
was the big bang really the absolute beginning?
I agree with the Kalam argument because most of it was scientifically proven. Like for example that they can prove that big bang did happen and created the universe.
L2
for
universe seems to be made up of entirely of contingent things.
against
whole/parts fallacy
properties of the whole aren't necessarily properties of the parts(and viceverson)
i don't agree with this agreement because i think that the properties of the whole thing aren't completely properties of the parts.
I find that the Big Bang theory is one of the most reasonable arguements out there. The Big Bang theory is that the universe was the absolute beginning of the universe. The Big Bang theory makes the most sense of any hypothesis of how the universe first started. The universe started from one small thing of matter then expanded into this giant universe. The Bing Bang theory has a lot of evidence since this theory has been around for many years, then many different people have studied it. And many people aadded many new ideas to the theory. There are very few arguements agsins this theory. Virtual particles and radioactive decay. I find that this hypothesis is the most reasonable one of them all.
ReplyDeleteAnother hypothesis is the one that every object depends on another object to exist. It pretty much means that everyday objects need a cause to exist. So without a cause then it would not exist. I do not have any arguements against this theory. So I do find this hypothesis reasonable, but just not as well thought through as the Big Band theory.
From the Kalam argument, I chose premise 2: The Universe began to exist. The evidence that supports this premise is the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang Theory explains that the Universe had an absolute beginning, that it has expanded and that entropy (the level of disorganization in the Universe) is increasing. Evidence against this premise is the question of whether or not the Big Bang was really the Universe's absolute beginning. I find this premise and its evidence to be quite reasonable. The Big Bang is the best explanation we have for how it all began. I also agree with the evidence against this premise because I question whether or not the Big Bang was really the beginning of our Universe.
ReplyDeleteI chose premise 3 for the Leibniz, or contingency, argument. Premise 3 states that "the ultimate explanation for contingent things is a necessary being". Evidence supporting this premise is that the existence of only contingent things means the possibility of an infinite regress: a never-ending chain of things that exist, all of which are contingent. Evidence against this premise is that there is no reason as to why an infinite regress is not possible. All that is in existence could be part of a circle of contingent things, each one depending on the others. I also agree with the arguments for and against this premise. The possibility of having an infinite regress sounds unreasonable, but at the same time there is no reason that it should be considered impossible.
K2
ReplyDeleteThe universe began to exist.
-expansion of the universe
-entropy increasing
Against: Was the Big Bang really the absolute beginning?
I feel like that the big bang is somewhat of the absolute beginning because the universe be came something after this it was basically "known"
Premise 1: Say everything contingent has an explanation of its existence outside of itself.
For example the iPad I am typing on has many things that has been made by a machine and was also helped by engineers and they were made from their parents.... So on and so one. Everything had a process and a time of making everyone could have the same amount of steps and some could take longer they could have been more advance , but just looking around you know even a light bulb took time and steps in making.
For this argument I choose the first premise. This states that everything that begins to exist has a cause outside itself. This is a pretty sound statement. Everything that we see and know was created by someone or something else. That covers most of the things but there is some little things that go against it like in the case of radioactive decay or virtual particles but to us those are not common if at all.
ReplyDeleteFor the other argument which is the contingency argument i choose the first premise which states that everything contingent has an explanation of its existence outside itself. This is a very sound statement. It has everything going for it like everyday objects and how they depend on other things for their existence and there is not anything known to us that goes against this statement
The Kalam argument is easier to understand because it suggests that the universe itself came into existence by a cause outside itself. In the Kalam 2 arugument, it is stated that the universe had a beginning, which is supported by the ever popular big bang theory. the universe is constantly expanding aswell as the entropy. As recent nobel prize winning scientist state, the universe is constantly expanding at an accelerating speed. Does there discovery prove the K2 argument?
ReplyDeleteThe Leibniz Argument, or Contigency Argument states that everything thing that is existing at that moment is playing into and exact plan. this relates to fate. everything that any individual does depends on everything leading up to that movie and in the L1 argument a supreme being is behind everything.
I chose premise one of the Kalam cosmological argument. This premise states that "everything that begins to exist has a cause outside of itself". While it seems intuitively correct, one obvious yet crucial example can be presented when one realizes that everyday objects have not always existed and were brought into existence by something else. This helps support the stated premise. However, statements that disagree with this premise are the existence or radioactive decay and virtual particles, which seem to pop up at random, and no one can explain why. I side with this premise because it is a fact: everything that has ever been existed because something caused it to become. This statement is impossible to argue.
ReplyDeleteThe second premise of the Leinitz argument states that the universe, as a whole, is contingent. This suggests that everything within the universe is also contingent. Some may counter this argument by saying that the whole is not necessarily the same as the parts. I agree with this premise because everything is contingent upon one another.
For the Kalam argument, I would say that the second premise, "The universe began to exist", while an understandable assumption, simply doesn't seem a reasonable one to make. The evidence is all indirect evidence based around the universe, and how it seems to have had a single point in time where it began. The problem is that the evidence really isn't conclusive in that regard, so it just feels like too much of a leap to take.
ReplyDeleteFor the contingency, or Leibniz argument,I would say that the first premise is he most notable. It states that nothing comes into being of its own accord, and that everything exists because some external force acted upon it. I find this to be a reasonable premise, as there is much evidence for such an idea to be true, and it requires few assumptions to accept it as true.
for the kalam argument, i chose premise 2. The universe began to exist. the arguments for the premise is the big bang theory. the big bang theory is that the universe began to exist by a huge expansion of matter. against this is the argument of weather the big bang was the beginning of it all. i thing that the universe had to start to exist because if it was around for infinite amount of time, then the universe would be so spread apart, and cold, not stable for life to exist. thermodynamics explains this. because energy is constantly expanding.
ReplyDeleteL3 says "the ultimate explanation for contingent things is a necessary being". all things in the universe is contingent, but something that is not contingent needs to cause contingent things. if there was not supreme being, then how could have anything have started?
I chose premise two for the Kalam Argument which is "the universe began to exist". Something that helps that argument is the Big Band Theory. We have talked about it many times in class and it states that the universe started out and kept getting bigger and bigger and it continues to grow as we speak. Therefore the universe began to exist. Something going against that argument is religion. People who have faith in that God made everything in the world and everything around it could argue that the universe didn't get bigger and bigger but God just simply made it happen. Given the fact that I am extremely religious and believe that God created everything because he simply could I agree with the against. HOWEVER, the Big Bang theory does have its points and it is easy to believe that the universe grew bigger and bigger. The fact that it is still growing helps that argument a lot.
ReplyDeleteFor the Contingency Argument, I chose the first premise which says "everything contingent has an explanation of its existence outside itself". I agree with this statement because without an outside cause, nothing would be here. There would be no universe if it weren't for the Big Bang or God (which ever you believe in) and everything on the earth wouldn't have happened with a necessary being. So I cannot find any cons against this argument.
For the Kalam argument, lets go with the trend here and choose the first premise, conveniently deemed 'L1'. L1 states that "everything that begins to exist has a cause outside itself".
ReplyDeleteGenerally, this seems pretty much correct by intuition. Most things around us have causes for their existence. They have NOT always existed, and were brought into existence by some other cause or condition. There are only a few known (KNOWN-- this is important) things which contradict that statement, among them are quantum events (changing quantum levels in some sub-atomic particles) and radioactive decay. These existences/processes have no known cause for their happening.
For the Leibniz argument, let us again go with the first premise (cleverly 'L1'), which states that "everything contingent has an explanation outside itself". This humble premise makes no sweeping generalizations, it is simply a definition of the term 'contingent'. It can be verified through everyday observation: all everyday objects in the world around us were made to exist by some cause or condition. Their is no solid counterargument to this premise.
--Gareth Haynes
A premise of the Kalam argument states that the universe came into existence. There is much scientific evidence for the truth of this, as both the expansion of the universe and simple thermodynamic principles demonstrate that it is quite impossible for the universe as we know it could not have existed for an infinite amount of time. However, the multiverse hypothesis proposes that other universe in other dimensions may have brought our universe into existence. This, however, would need an infinite number of exponentially increasing universes, is possible, but unlikely.
ReplyDeleteOne of the premises of the Leibniz argument is that the universe as a whole is contingent. This seems at first glance to be obviously true, because there is not one necessary item in the universe. However, that pesky multiverse hypothesis again claims that an infinite series of universes explain our own, and hold them in existence. Once again though, this assumed that there are eleven dimensions, which I find rather unlikely.