The cosmological argument

What do the cosmological argument aim to prove?

God's existence based on God's ability to create the universe

What are the first three ways that form the cosmological argument?

1) Arguments from Motion
2) Arguments from Causation
3) Arguments from Contingency

How did Aquinas Argue for the existence from God?

Through understanding of science and physical evidence

What is the argument from Motion?

We live in a world that is constantly moving, the movement is caused by movers and something therefore must have been the original mover to set the motion off otherwise there would be an infinite regress.

What does infinite regress?

In a chain of reasoning, each point in the chain relies on the existence of something that came before it and so on, with no starting point. Aquinas argued against this as he said it was like knocking over a line of domino's and saying nothing pushed the first one. (Absurd) Must be a beginning

What is the second cosmological argument?

Some things are caused and anything that is caused must be caused by something else, there cannot be an infinite regress of causes so there must be a first causer, itself uncaused which is God.

What is a necessary being?

A being that has always existed, will always exist and cannot not exist.

What is a contingent being?

Any being that could not exist

What is the third cosmological argument?

The argument from contingency- We cannot all be contingent beings as again it would lead to an infinite regress and no one may have existed, therefore there must be a necessary being that has always existed to prevent the regress.

Name a weakness of the cosmological arguments?

Don't establish any particular God, we are left with uncaused causers and unmoved movers which have little in common with the christian God that many pray to and love, the God that cares about his creation, Aquinas' God is too far removed from the theistic God that many follow.

What doesn't Aquinas' arguments rule out?

Polytheism

What may Aquinas' argument justify?

A non sentient being, following Aquinas' argument the creator may simply be an egg or any other material object.

What is the criticism based off Aquinas' denial of an infinite regress?

Aquinas takes it as a given that there must be a starting point for everyone, if infinite regress is possible then his first two points fall apart.

What is the biggest weakness to Aquinas' Cosmological argument?

They are self defeating- they prove themselves wrong. If Aquinas is right about everything being put into motion by something else and caused by other things then who says God doesn't have to be caused or moved? If we can exist without God being responsible for us then we don't need God to establish things in the first place. We can accept his argument without accepting his conclusion.

What is the difference between the Prime Mover of Aquinas and the Prime Mover of Aristotle?

The prime mover of Aquinas- motion is a consequence of a creative act of God and he initiates all movement in the universe by a deliberate act of will. The prime mover of Aristotle- Acts by attraction, he is indifferent to the universe and has no intentions for it.

What does David Hume argue about Causation?

He says that we speak of "cause" and "effect" and assume we understand the ideas but scientifically they remain problematic. He argues that "Cause and Effect" disguises the complexity of the motion. Cause and Effect may simply be our way of reporting a statistical correlation. Instead of saying " x causes y" We could just say "whenever x, y" We can therefore describe the phenomenon without any mention of cause. Cause is therefore not the obvious notion which Aquinas assumes.

Describe a criticism of God being a cause.

Whatever is meant by "cause" in relation to God cannot be in the scientific sense, God is not another cause in the way that my moving is caused by the movement of my joints. We have Biological causes and chemical causes but no divine cause as far as we are aware.

What does Aquinas assume about time and the earth?

There was a time when there was nothing.

Which Philosopher critiqued this and what did he say?

Bertrand Russell- Questions whether it makes sense to speak of a "necessary being." In logic, a proposition may be described as "necessary" It is a necessary truth that a square has four sides. Can a "thing" be necessary, whatever we mean by "necessary" it is a special usage. But if nothing else than God is necessary, and we cannot see his necessity. It is impossible to argue that we have any concept of necessary being that we can atribute to God.

How can we critique Aquinas' belief on infinite regress?

According to Aquinas it is impossible, however we must distinguish what we believe to be impossible and something actually being impossible.

What did William Temple say about infinite regress?

" It is impossible to imagine infinite regress but it is not impossible to conceive it"- meaning we can understand it not imagine it. Infinite regress is logically possible even if it is difficult to understand. "infinite" and "regress" do not contradict eachother whilst "square circle" contradicts eachother. A square circle is unimaginable but also unthinkable.

Why is God being seen as the beginning of things a criticism?

Most religious people see the universe not just about the beginning of the earth but how it was sustained. For believers God sustains and loves the world.

What does Paul Tillich say?

speaks of God as the " Ground being" which refers to his continued action. When we ask for an explanation we ask why things are the way they are not just how they began.

What does Lebiniz say about the universe?

The principle of sufficient reason is that every truth, every fact and every event has a sufficient reason which explains why the way it is. He states that the way we reason is based on two principles, first is the principle of contradiction. Second, is the principle of sufficient reason which is an explanation that requires no further explanation. There are sufficient reasons to explain everything however they are unknown to us.

What does Betrand Russel argue against this?

They are guilty of logical fallacy, just because something is true of one thing doesn't mean it is true of a whole. He says we may wish there to be an explanation but it doesn't mean there is one. We cannot assert there is an explanation without evidence for it.

What is the Causal Principle ?

The claim that every event to thing has a cause

What do Aquinas first and second ways presume?

That the causal principle is valid- things which change or exist have a cause

What does Humes fork tell us?

Propositions such as the causal principle can either be analytic or synthetic

What does Hume say the causal principle is not?

True by definition (analytic)

What is an issue with the causal principle only being justified on a posteriori grounds (synthetic truth)?

Claims based on experiences cannot be known with certainty to be true in all cases- doesn’t mean that all events have a cause since we have no experienced all events

Where does Hume argue that our belief that two events are causally related stems from?

Having observed them constantly conjoined- eg everytime you have seen someone drop a ball- it has been followed by the ball dropping on the floor- this is not enough to justify belief in a necessary connection between A and B

What does Hume say you cannot be justified in thinking no matter how many times you observe one event following another?

Thinking that there is a necessary connection between the two events- that it is impossible for A to happen without B

Following Humes logic- What can we not justifiably claim about the causal principle ?

That it applies universally

How can the causal principle be defended in the face of Humes criticism?

The universality of the causal principle is justified through induction- evidence suggests that B will always follow from A

What does the evidence we have for the causal principle come from?

Our observation of change from within the universe itself

What does our only knowledge of causation coming from within the universe mean for Aquinas theory?

We are not justified in assuming that these conditions apply to the universe itself

How does Copleston respond to the argument that Aquinas’ 3rd way is subject to the fallacy of composition?

Only A posteriori cosmological arguments commit the fallacy of composition by assuming that the universe has a cause when is parts of the universe- a priori arguments claim to be derive from necessary truths rather than existence

What does Bertrand Russel say the universe is?

A brute fact

What does Hume say something needs to be to be impossible?

Self-contradictory

What does Hume say is not self contradictory and therefore not impossible ?

Infinite regress

What analogy does Craig use to argue against Hume and say that infinite regress is impossible?

* Uses the example of a library with infinite books- half red books/half green- if you take all the red books you would have taken an infinite amount of books out but there would still be an infinite left

Why is Craigs analogy of the infinite library flawed?

It involves an infinite number of physical objects, infinite regress could be a finite number over an infinite amount of time

Why does Aquinas claim infinite regress is impossible?

Then time has existed forever- must be an infinite amount of time before the present moment, an infinite amount of time must have passed and an infinite amount of time cannot pass