Studied by 2 people
3 marks: What is the difference between a cosmological argument from causation and contingency?
A cosmological argument from causation generally takes the form that:
Everything in the universe has a cause
The universe must have a cause
The cause is god.
A cosmological argument from contingency use the idea that the universe must depend on God for existence.
3 marks: What is the Kalam argument?
P1: everything that begins to exist has a cause
P2: the universe began to exist
C1: therefore, the universe had a cause of its existence
3 marks: What is the principle of sufficient reason?
Every fact has an explanation that provides a sufficient reason for why things are as they are and not otherwise. No fact is without sufficient reason for why they are can be true.
3 marks: What is the difference between a necessary and contingent being?
Contingent existence: something that depends on another object/substance in order to exist
Necessary existence: something which depends on nothing else for its existence.
5 marks: How does William Craig support Kalam argument by saying universe has a beginning.
William Craig supports the Kalam argument by claiming that the universe has a beginning.
Craig uses the thought experiment of "Hilbert's hotel" to show that disputing the beginning of the universe creates a paradox.
Hilbert's hotel demonstrates that infinity can lead to a paradox, where people can arrive and leave the hotel without changing the number of rooms, and yet the hotel is still full.
If the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time, it would mean that the universe does not age as time passes, and this is a contradiction.
Therefore, Craig argues that the universe must have had a beginning, and the Kalam argument follows from this.
5 marks: Outline Craig Kalam argument
Pl: Everything that begins to exist has a cause (of its existence)
P2: The universe (ie complete physical reality) began to exist
CI: Therefore, the universe had a cause of its existence.
P3: If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who beyond the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful. This describes God.
C2: God exists.
5 marks: Outline Aquinas’ 1st way (from motion)
P1: things in the world are in motion
P2: motion is a reduction from potentiality to actuality
P3: nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality except by something already in actuality
P4: the same thing cannot be both potentially and actually something
C1: therefore a thing that is moved cannot move itself
C2: therefore what is moved must be moves by another
P5: there cannot be an infinite regress
C3: therefore there must be an unmoved mover, which is God
This is an a posteriori argument: it begins w an empirical observation and reasons towards the existence of a 1st cause.
5 marks: Outline Aquinas’ 2nd way (from atemporal causation)
PI: We know (through experience) that the world contains efficient causes.
P2: Nothing can be the efficient cause of itself (if it could it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible)
P3: If the series of efficient causes was infinite there would not be a first efficient cause
P4: If there was no first efficient cause there would be no subsequent efficient causes (contradicting PI)
CI: Therefore there is a first efficient cause, and this is what we call God.
Aquinas concludes that God must be the first efficient cause because he says there cannot be an infinite chain of events. There has to be a first, uncaused cause in order to set the causal chain going. Without a first cause there would be no effect and no subsequent causes.
This makes use of a posteriori' reasoning (based on sense experience) and it is deductive' (if the premises are true the conclusion must be true).
5 marks: Outline Aquinas’ 3rd way (from contingency)
This relies on the distinction between contingent existence and necessary existence
P1: Contingent beings exist in the universe.
P2: If everything were contingent there would be a time when nothing existed (there cannot be an infinite series)
P3: If this were so, there would be nothing now as nothing comes from nothing.
P4: As contingent things do exist, there must be something that exists necessarily.
C: Therefore there must be something that exists necessarily
P5: A necessary being has its own necessity (relies on nothing else for its existence)
C2: The being which has its own necessity all men understand is God
C3: God exists
Issues with aquinas’ 3rd way
The argument assumes that if all beings in the universe are contingent, then nothing would exist now.
However, it is possible to argue that an infinite chain of contingent beings could exist.
The argument does not provide sufficient justification for why an infinite chain of contingent beings cannot exist.
This raises questions about the validity of P2 and P4 in the argument
5 marks: Outline Descartes’ argument for God based on his continuing existence
P1: from my existing at one time it doesn’t follow that I exist at later times
P2: I am aware of no power in me which causes my continual existence
P3: I am not responsible for my continued existence, so the cause must be external
C1: the external cause is either a) something less perfect than God or b) God
P4: I am a thinking thins, and within me I have an idea of a perfect God
P5: a cause must have as much reality as its effect
P6: the cause of that idea cannot be less perfect than God
C2: my continued existence cant be explained by something less perfect than god
C3: the cause of my continued existence as a thinking thing must be a singular, perfect, God.
5 marks: Objection to p1 of descartes’ argument for god based on his continued existence.
My choice to breathe, eat etc does seem to have an impact on whether I exist at a later time. It seems clear that preceding events have an impact on our future existence. This seems to contradict Descartes' assertion that existence at one time doesn't cause existence at a later time
5 marks: Descartes response to Objection to p1 of descartes’ argument for god based on his continued existence
He is talking about his self as a thinking thing (his mind), not his body. He says that if he were causing his own existence he would be God, and he would have all perfections, but he doesn't have all perfections and so has not caused his continuing existence.
5 marks: Outline Leibniz’s argument from the Principle of sufficient reason
PI: The principle of sufficient reason: every fact has an explanation that provides a sufficient reason for why things are as they are and not otherwise.
P2: There are two kinds of truth: those of reasoning and those of fact
a) Truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is impossible. Their truth is revealed by analysis (a priori).
b) Truths of fact are contingent, and their opposite is possible. We cannot explain them without reference to other contingent truths.
CI: Therefore, to provide a sufficient reason for any contingent fact, we must look outside the sequence of contingent facts.
C2: Therefore, the sufficient reason for contingent facts must be a necessary substance (or being) that is a sufficient reason for all contingent facts.
C3: This necessary substance (or being) is God, and God exists.
5 marks: Issues with Leibniz’s argument from the Principle of sufficient reason
Does the principle work for all facts? At the quantum level, explanations may not be available for human minds.
How detailed does a sufficient reason need to be? For a chemist, the explanation of chemical reactions may be enough, why go back to a necessary being?
5 marks: Explain how the possibility of An infinite series is an issue for hilbert’s hotel
Infinity can come in different sizes of "sets"
The set of even numbers is twice the size of the set of all whole numbers
Cantor's argument challenges the notion that infinity is a single, uniform entity
Craig argues that Hilbert's hotel creates a paradox, as infinity + 1 = infinity and infinity + infinity = infinity cannot both be true
However, if Cantor is correct, then these paradoxes disappear
Therefore, the possibility of an infinite series challenges the validity of Hilbert's hotel argument.
5 marks: Explain how the possibility of An infinite series is an issue for aquinas
Aquinas argues that a chain of events without a first cause is logically impossible
However, Hume argues that an infinite chain of causation does not require a first cause
Aquinas' argument applies to finite chains, but not necessarily to an infinite chain
Hume claims that we cannot logically reason whether the chain is infinite or not, as causation is not a relation of ideas
5 marks: Explain how the possibility of An infinite series is an issue for causal arguments
The causal arguments all rely on the idea that an infinite series of causes is impossible. If it were possible to have an infinite series of causes then the idea that the universe has a definite beginning (Kalam) or the idea that there must be an unmoved mover or a first cause to begin the chain of causes would be undermined.
5 marks: response to how the possibility of An infinite series is an issue for hilbert’s hotel
Craig argues that the Big Bang theory supports his version of the Kalam argument
Craig believes that the Big Bang suggests that the universe has a beginning and anything that has a beginning has a cause
Craig argues that the cause of the universe must be external to the laws of the universe, and is personal, all-powerful, and non-corporeal
Craig concludes that the cause of the universe is what we would call "God"
However, the Big Bang/Big Crunch hypothesis and the multiverse hypothesis could undermine Craig's claim
The Big Crunch hypothesis suggests that the Big Bang arose from the collapse of another universe, part of an infinite chain of universes expanding and collapsing
Many multiverse models assume infinite universes, and infinite time or space
5 marks: Explain Hume’s Objection to the causal principle
The causal principle states that every effect has a cause
Without the causal principle, cosmological arguments cannot deductively prove the universe has a cause
Hume believes the causal principle is not a relation of ideas and is not deductively or logically certain
Hume thinks that understanding the link between cause and effect comes from observing the same effect following the same cause multiple times
Hume believes that causation is a matter of probability, not certainty, and therefore cannot be used in deductive arguments
5 marks: Explain how Hume’s Objection to the causal principle is an issue for kalam argument and aquinas’ second way
If cause and effect can only be justified with reference to experience of similar causes and similar effects then we simply don't have access to any kind of experience which would give us reason to argue that we can assign a high probability to the idea that God caused the universe to exist. We certainly cannot have a deductive argument that proves God is the cause.
5 marks: Explain how Hume’s Objection to the causal principle is an issue for aquinas’ first way
Hume thinks we need experience and cannot use a priori deduction to prove the existence of any cause. It is important to note that Hume is not arguing here that there is such thing as an effect without a cause, just that we cannot prove beyond doubt what the cause might be.
5 marks: Explain how Hume’s Objection to the causal principle is an issue for descartes
The idea of a sustaining cause doesn't really fit into Hume's idea. - do we really need to believe we even have a sustaining cause? Why can't we use our experience of breathing, bodily processes etc to explain the cause of our continuing existence? It isn't clear why a further explanation is even needed here
5 marks: Explain russels objection that the cosmological argument commits the fallacy of composition
Russell's objection to the cosmological argument:
The cosmological argument commits the fallacy of composition.
Russell gives an example to illustrate the fallacy of composition, stating that every man has a mother, but that doesn't mean that the human race has a mother.
The same logic is used in the PSR, which says that every event/truth requires an explanation, but it doesn't lead to the conclusion that the universe as a whole requires an explanation.
Russell suggests that we accept that the universe is just there, and that's all.
Aquinas' third way:
Aquinas argues that if the universe was only made up of contingent beings, then there must be nothing at all at some point.
This also commits the fallacy of composition.
Aquinas gives an example of five Canadians on a street corner in New York, where each tells us their own parts of the world are caused, but we wouldn't demand a further reason that all five are there as a whole.
In the same way, we can explain how individual parts of the world are caused, so why do we need a further explanation for the whole thing?
Avoiding the objection:
The fallacy of composition is not always wrong.
There may be examples where arguing from the part to the whole is correct, such as how the universe is constructed of atoms
5 marks: Explain Hume’s argument that a necessary being is impossible
PI: Nothing is necessary unless its contrary implies a contradiction.
P2: Nothing that is distinctly conceivable implies a contradiction.
P3: Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent.
Cl: So there is no being whose non-existence implies a contradiction.
C2: So there is no being whose existence is necessary.
5 marks: Explain Russell’s argument that a necessary being is impossible
PI: The concept of "necessary' can only be applied to "truths of reason", which are analytic propositions.
P2: An analytic proposition is one which is self-contradictory to deny
P3: It is not self-contradictory to say "God does not exist"
C: God exists is not analytic and is not a necessary proposition.
How could a proponent of the cosmological argument defend the idea of God against Hume and Russell's objection?
Hume and Russell's objections assume that "God exists necessarily" means the sentence 'God exists' is necessarily true.
However, many people define necessary existence as "depending on nothing else to exist."
This definition does not contradict the statement "if God exists, God exists necessarily."
Hume and Russell's arguments do not give us reason to reject this definition of necessary existence.
The cosmological argument from contingency leaves us with a dilemma: either the universe is explained by a necessary being, or it is not explained at all.
Note 
Flashcard (20)