cosmological argument

explain why aquinas came up with the five ways (only need to know 3)

• universe can’t have created itself so there has to be a reason why

• built on aristotle’s idea of the prime mover

• universe exists so there needs to be a reason why

what are aquinas’ five ways (only need to know 3)

1. unmoved mover

2. uncaused causer

3. necessity and contingency

explain unmoved mover

• change

• everything is in motion/changing and so it has to be put into motion or changed by something else
  → e.g. ice needs heat to melt. the world needs god to change

• cannot move potentiality to actuality alone

• series of things making things change can’t be infinite so there needs to be an unmoved mover to set everything off
  

explain uncaused causer

• causation

• everything that exists must have a cause
  → e.g. chair’s efficient cause is a carpenter

• this chain can’t go on infinitely though so an uncaused causer misy exist
  → this is god

explain necessity and contingency

• all things in nature are made and then decay

• therefore all things can exist and not exist- meaning they didn’t always exist

• if everything could not exist, then at some point nothing existed

• if that were true then it would be impossible for anything to exist

• can’t be a cycle of contingent beings forever, there has to be a necessary one - god.

name 2 strengths of aquinas’ five ways (only need to know 3)

1. feser
   imagine looking at a shelf holding books on a wall. if it’s not attached to the wall by screws and brackets, or the wall isn’t supported by foundations, it would all come down. we need a ground of being to keep reality going
   

2. aristotle and the prime mover
   

name 4 limitations of aquinas’ five ways (only need to know 3)

1. russell: infinite regression might be possible. we see infinities i maths. e.g. minus numbers can go back forever, so can be the same in the world.
   it might be extremely difficult to understand concept of an infinite regression but that doesn’t mean it doesn't exist. religious people talk about god being eternal so why can’t god be?
   → big bang
   → imagining a series of minus numbers is not the same as imagining a series of things in the real world mysteriously popping into existence, needs an uncaused causer
   

2. doesn’t establish a traditional god like a loving one like the PM. doesn’t rule out polytheism. nothing about christianity view. not loving or worth worshipping as he doesn’t care about is
   

3. science
   

4. self defeating- if nothing can exist without something else, how can god exist without something else? if he is exempt from that, why can’t other things be?
   → however, god is a necessary being not a contingent one so doesn’t need a cause

explain science in criticising aquinas’ five ways (only need to know 3)

1. big bang theory
   matter can’t be created or destroyed so the big bang theory could’ve created the beginning of the universe when it just happened to compact correctly. matter is eternal so it doesn’t need a creator
   → how did this mater come into existence?
   

2. newton
   in space, something can move forever without being stooped. this shows motion can occur without being continuously caused,
   shows the aristotlian understanding of physics (that aquinas used) is outdated

   → however aquinas isn’t talking about motion in that sense. he means change in any way. newton only shows why his science is outdated but doesn’t limit him by explaining why change happens in the first place.
   → aquinas is making a metaphysical claim not a scientific one and so this can still work despite the wrong science
   → not about how movement works but instead about how change happens in the world
   
   

explain the 3 parts of paley’s design argument

1. watch analogy

2. design qua purpose

3. design qua regularity

explain paley’s watch argument

• watch is intricately designed

• if we saw a watch on the street we’d know it had a creator or a designer

• it should be the same for super intricate things like an eye or a leaf which is detailed enough and works amazingly for its purpose

• millions of cells coordinate in brain to perfectly
  → even if the watch didn’t work perfectly, there is enough to infer a creator

explain design qua purpose

• shows there is a creator as things are fit for purpose
  → e.g. eye is for seeing, apple is for eating

explain design qua regularity

• astronomy and newton’s laws of motion show there is change in the universe

• couldn’t have come about by chance

• why would things happen in regular patterns like seasons, or years?

• infers a designer

how does hume’s view contrasting paley

• smoke by fire and ice are similar but have different causes
  → “2 effects that are alike might have different causes”

• we can’t compare things that are natural (eyes) to manmade things (watch)

• natural things are adaptive (shown by evolution)

• world has to fit together and function to continue → it will adapt to be able to survive

• why would we have things in the world which aren’t well designed? why would babies have umbilical cords that can tie around their necks?

• “flawed world implies a flawed creator”

• either non existent or not worth worshipping

explain the epicurean thesis

• if we have infinite time and finite number of particles, eventually they will undergo every possible combination

• this would include one (or more) which creates life sustaining universe with some order

• like monkeys with type writers, they will eventually type out the bible or shakespeare

explain darwin’s view contrasting paley

• evolution and random mutation shows a lack of plan that god has and how nature just adapts

• organisms differ across the islands they live in and adapt to particular surroundings

• because of this, natural selection (survival of the fittest) occurs and these random mutations help other animals survive in their environment

• evolution shows that there is no divine order or intelligence behind it- naturally occurring

• random mutations also show god doesn’t exist and things randomly occur

explain 2 strengths of paley’s design argument

1. tennant: world has to be in such a specific place, at such a specific time, with such specific elements to have survive and be habitable for life. the chance of all of this occuring is extremely low so must have been planned
   → hume: epicurean theory. the universe is massive, what would be the point of the universe if it’s just for us. also, do we know there aren’t others?
   

2. it is the simplest explanation for the creation of things, fitting ockham’s razor
   'simplicity is always evidence for truth”
   

name 3 limitations of paley’s design argument

1. hume
   

2. sartre: existentialism. we have no fit purpose. apple might just exist and be beneficially healthy and edible. we apply purpose to things. nothing in the world has a purpose and we are like a blank canvas
   

3. darwin: evolution explains why things are fit for purpose
   → evolution can work with god. god designs and adapts for the changing environment for animals to survive. he does have a plan after all. god set up precise conditions for this
   → random mutations
   

explain leibniz and sufficient reason

• for anything in existence, there needs to be a reason for it
  → e.g. cracked phone has a reason why it’s cracked

• all contingent truths (like smashed phone) must have a reason why
  → e.g. angrily throwing it

• even if we can’ t know or find out what the reason is, there must still be one

• the universe is contingent because it didn’t have to exist, therefore there needs to be a reason
  → god must be the reason = the sufficient reason

• infinite series could exist but not by itself. it must have been created by a necessary being outside the series
  → even if the world always existed, we can ask why it has

explain russel’s response to leibniz

• logical fallacy

• experience shows that parts of the universe have reason but to say the universe as a whole has one commits the logical fallacy
  
  (leibniz and aquinas: series must have an explanation not because their parts do, because all contingent things must)
  

• series doesn’t need its own explanation because it is just mentally grouped set of sufficiently explained things

• the universe is “just there and that’s all”

• it isn’t necessary nor contingent since it doesn’t have it’s own explanation or depend on anything else

• infinite regress explanation may be impossible but we don’t have a reason for applying that to the universe