Cosmological Argument

What is the cosmological argument?

• proving God from universe’s existence

• a posteriori argument

• basis for the argument is that the universe cannot account for its own existence

What is the Kalam argument?

Muslim philosophers sought an argument that showed God as the originating cause

Re-defined by William Lane Craig:

• everything that begins to exist has a cause

• the universe began to exist

• therefore the universe has a cause

• this cause is God

What is Aquinas’ fifth way?

• objects are in motion, but cannot cause their own motion

• they have the potential to move

• only objects in a state of actuality can cause motion

• no object can be both in a state of potentiality and actuality

• some other object must be the cause of motion

• a chain of objects in motion is needed

• infinite regress is impossible - there must be a Prime Mover

What is Aquinas’ second way?

• everything has a cause

• nothing can be the efficient cause of itself

• infinite regress would be impossible - if there were no first causes, there would be no subsequent causes

• series of ‘caused causes’ implies an uncaused cause i.e. something that is not caused by anything else

What is Aquinas’ third way?

• things exist contingently

• at some point in time, each contingent thing did not exist

• there must have been a point where every contingent thing doesn’t exist at the same time

• in that case, nothing could exist now, as nothing can happen without a cause

• things do exist now, so there must be a necessary being explaining existence of contingent things now (God)

What is Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason?

• nothing happens without a reason

• every fact, event, truth must have some explanation

• sufficient reason - something that fully accounts for why the thing is the way it is

• e.g. fallen book on floor analogy

What are Hume’s criticisms of PSR?

• Fallacy of Composition - just because the parts of the universe have causes, doesn’t mean the universe itself has one

• Lack of experience - cannot speculate meaningfully about the universe’s origin with nothing to compare it to

• What caused God? - If there is a God, why is he Abrahamic? Surely he could be limited

• Why can’t something exist without a cause? - rejected idea of necessary existence; every being is contingent

What is cause in fieri?

• refers to the first cause in time

• what caused the start of your existence

• e.g. parents

What is cause in esse?

• refers to what keeps something in existence

• the reason you don’t stop existing

• e.g. food, water, oxygen…

God is the reason the universe doesn’t cease to exist

Criticisms of the first two ways

• too large a leap from first cause/Prime Mover to God

• who made God - why does God have to be first cause?

• quantum physics suggests that at a sub-atomic level there may be random movements

• he commits the Infinite Regress Fallacy - in nature we have infinite series, so why shouldn’t nature itself be an infinite series?

Criticisms of the third way

• doesn’t prove God of classical theism

• assumes that infinite regress is possible

• cause may have more than one effect

• it is meaningless to ask what caused the universe

What was Copleston’s view?

• defended contingency version of the argument

• everything in the universe is contingent, therefore there must be a necessary being to explain why anything exists at all

• relied heavily on PSR

What was Swinburne’s view?

• supports a version based on probability

• existence of God simplest explanation for universe

• suggests God’s existence more likely than not given existence of the universe

What was Anscombe’s view?

• critiques Hume’s rejection of causality

• causality is a basic feature of understanding the world

• supports idea that it’s rational to believe in a first cause because existence of contingent things require an ultimate explanation

What is Craig’s view?

• prominent defender of Kalam Argument

• uses scientific evidence and philosophical reasoning to argue that the universe must have had a beginning, thus a transcendent cause (God)

What was Occam’s view?

• nominalist - rejected need for universal explanations

• not everything needs an explanation

• some events could happen contingently

• emphasised divine omnipotence

• PSR assumed reality must be fully rational and explainable; unjustified assumption

What is Kant’s view?

• cannot extend our knowledge to questions that go beyond our experience

• causation only applies to things within phenomena (world of experience) and not noumena

• we cannot experience the universe as a whole; we cannot assume it needs a cause

What is Mackie’s view?

• if everything requires a cause, then so does God

• assumption there must be an explanation is untrue - some facts may just be brute facts

• suggests infinite regress could be possible

• just because every part of universe has a cause, doesn’t mean universe as a whole has one

What is John Hick’s view?

• universe could exist without needing an explanation - brute fact

• problem of assuming causation must apply beyond the universe when we have no experience of anything beyond it