The Cosmological Arguments

Naturalism

The view that only things in the natural world exist and supernatural things such as spirits, don’t

Theism

That there is a god who has created everything

Base idea of Cosmological argument

Uses evidence from the physical universe to find a cause for The universe.

ex. it did not come into existence on its own, so it must have been do to with transcendent force like God or some other force

Kaalam Cosmological argument

1. everything that comes into existence has a cause,

2. universe came into existence, the universe has a cause

valid but not certain that universe came into existence

Craig’s argument for 1st premise

Things come into the existence from something. If they didn’t and things came from nothing why hasn’t that been observed

Mackie’s Response to Craig’s 1st premise

Said that it didnt make sense to argue that things dont come out of nowhere but to argue for God (who creates from nothing)

Craig’s arguments for the 2nd premise

Argues the universe had a beginning and the big bang theory explains this. as well as 2nd law of thermodynamics, grim reaper paradox, infinity is impossible

1. The “First Cause” Argument

Every dependent being is caused to exist by something else (by definition)

2. Some dependent beings exist

3. A regress of causes cannot proceed to infinity, or form a closed loop

-----------------------

 There is an independent being (first cause)

The Alfarabi Principle

argues that dependent beings cannot come into existence on there own and

that there is not an infinite chain of causes

or that beings existence can loop in a circle

“From itself” Properties

There are some things that get their properties from other things.

Like how a warm rock gets its heat from a fire

But the fire gets its heat from itself, Heat is its natural property

Dependent existence

When an object needs something else in order to exist

Self existence

An object existing from itself. example would be god

Argument against first cause argument

1st premise that dependent beings have a cause is true to what weve observed

2nd Premise that dependent beings exist is true

3rd premise that there is no infinite chain of causes, or that it circles is weak as it has not been proven

Why infinite regress and circle are not possible

Infinite regress not possible ruled out by Al Farabi'

Clark argues that the cause cannot be looped since the circle would be made out of dependent beings so it would need an external cause

infinite regress is impossible for the same reason

Infinite collection of dependent beings is itself a dependent being

if all the parts are dependent on the whole but since the whole itself is dependent (made of dependent parts) it cannot be sustained on its own

Russells argument against first cause

believes that arguing that the universe is dependent because its parts are dependent is a composition fallacy'

(using one mechanism of something to explain the whole)

Mackie questioned why god is the only solution / the casue. What if it is something else enitrely, or nothing at all

Self-existent being are not necessary argument

The first cause argument only shows (even if it succeeds) that if there are dependent beings, then there must be a self-existent being as well. • But there seems to be no logical reason why a selfexistent being has to exist. After all, it seems quite conceivable that nothing should exist at all.

self existent doesnt equal necesarry

Contingent fact

a fact that could have been different or not happened

ex. It could have been snowing today

Lebniz’s cosmological argument

1st premise: Contingent facts have a reason

2nd: There is a contingent fact for all contingent facts combined =

There is a explanation for this total contingent fact

(cant be another contigent fact but a necessary being)