Since, Hume denies causation and metaphysic given that God-talk is a metaphysical notion it follows that, for him, the Kalam cosmological argument is flawed.
Hume’s argument mentioned above suggests that there can be a beginning without a cause. As a counter argument, Anscombe would say that, Hume can “imagine” may be say a rabbit coming into being. This means to say that Hume who is imagining the rabbit coming into being is the cause of the rabbit’s coming into existence (50). In addition, Kant on Hume’s view that there is no causal link or necessary connection would say that, Hume has made a mistake in not reasoning that when he denies causation he is actually using the category of causation. What helps us to understand causation are the categories of
…show more content…
He argues that, there is no evidence of absolute beginning. This criticism targets the second premise (P2). He asserts that indeed the evidence have shown that there was a Big Bang but do we have enough evidence that the Big Bang was an absolute beginning (ed. Boslough 85). How accurate is the scientific evidence for this conclusion? Is that proof of an absolute beginning? What if the universe was just eternal recurrence? Is it not that ascribing to Big Bang a model that shows human limitedness? In the same line of thought, does it mean that the universe did not existed before the Big Bang or it just explains science’s limitation? (Davies 52) Another question raised as an objection to the Kalam cosmological argument is that, why do we say that things are expanding, what if they are collapsing? Looking at science we would appreciate that science can change. It is not static, new theories can come up. For instance, the Newtonian theory was replaced by the Einsteinian theory, we moved from geocentricism to heliocentrism. Given that science is still growing would we say that the Big Bang theory has an absolute bearing to the existence of the