A lot can be said about the temporal causal cosmological argument (also known as the Kalam), but there isn't much to say when it is presented as an argument for Christianity. The answer is 'No'. The Kalam cosmological argument is not the best argument for Christianity. It is not not an argument for Christianity. It is an argument for the universe having a cause. You can infer from this that it is an argument for the existence of a transcendent creator of the unvierse, but this still isn't an argument for Christianity. But why not, given that one of the central tenets of Christianity is precisely the existence of a transcendent creator? Because this is the central tenet of other religions as well, such as Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Vaishnavism, etc. I am not going to discuss whether the argument is good or bad, but it is an argument for a cause of the universe. It is not necessarily an argument for Christianity. The content of the conclusion is simply too broad to support Christianity. For that purpose more specific premises towards the specific conclusion that Christianity is true are necessary. Sure, if there is a transcendent creator, it is possible that Christianity is true, but it is still not more probable than not. It is even possible that there is a transcendent creator, and yet all religions are false.
The Kalam, with its three premises, isn't even an argument for a god. It's an argument for a cause to the beginning of the universe. To get to a god...much less a specific religion...you must add a boat load of premises that are truly weak.
First I've heard of this. Ill listen. Thanks for sharing ❤❤❤
A lot can be said about the temporal causal cosmological argument (also known as the Kalam), but there isn't much to say when it is presented as an argument for Christianity. The answer is 'No'. The Kalam cosmological argument is not the best argument for Christianity. It is not not an argument for Christianity. It is an argument for the universe having a cause. You can infer from this that it is an argument for the existence of a transcendent creator of the unvierse, but this still isn't an argument for Christianity. But why not, given that one of the central tenets of Christianity is precisely the existence of a transcendent creator? Because this is the central tenet of other religions as well, such as Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Vaishnavism, etc. I am not going to discuss whether the argument is good or bad, but it is an argument for a cause of the universe. It is not necessarily an argument for Christianity. The content of the conclusion is simply too broad to support Christianity. For that purpose more specific premises towards the specific conclusion that Christianity is true are necessary. Sure, if there is a transcendent creator, it is possible that Christianity is true, but it is still not more probable than not. It is even possible that there is a transcendent creator, and yet all religions are false.
The Kalam, with its three premises, isn't even an argument for a god. It's an argument for a cause to the beginning of the universe. To get to a god...much less a specific religion...you must add a boat load of premises that are truly weak.
The Kalam argument is nowhere near as strong as the contingency argument.
meh...the contingency argument relies upon special pleading