Cosmological argument

Aquinas first way

Argument from motions

• Some things in the world are in motion

  • E.g. a football rolling along the ground

• Things can’t move themselves, so whatever is in motion must have been put in motion by something else

  • E.g. someone kicked the ball

• If A is put in motion by B, then something else (C) must have put B in motion, and so on

• If this chain goes on infinitely, then there is no first mover

• If there is no first mover, then there is no other mover, and so nothing would be in motion

• But things are in motion

• Therefore, there must be a first mover

• The first mover is God

Aquinas Second way

Argument from causation

• Everything in the universe is subject to cause and effect

  • E.g. throwing a rock caused the window to smash

• C is caused by B, and B is caused by A, and so on

• If this chain of causation was infinite, there would be no first cause

• If there were no first cause, there would be no subsequent causes or effects

• But there are causes and effects in the world

• Therefore, there must have been a first cause

• The first cause is God

Aquinas third way

Argument from contingency

• Everything that exists contingently did not exist at some point

• If everything exists contingently, then at some point nothing existed

• If nothing existed, then nothing could begin to exist

• But since things did begin to exist, there was never nothing in existence

• Therefore, there must be something that does not exist contingently, but that exists necessarily

• This necessary being is God

Hume on the Causal principle

Causal principle - Claims that everything has a cause,

Hume argues that the causal principle is not analytic we can deny it without contradicting ourselves. We can assert that something can come out of nothing. Logically these claims may be true or false that means these claims are not only not analytic they are also not certain if they are not analytic we can only know them through experience our experience supports these claims they are probably true but experience cannot establish a claim that holds universally without exception.

Hume continues that the first and second ways dont prove that god exists however even Hume accepts that we have a good reason to think that everything has a cause .

The possibility of an infinite series

Aquinas claims that there cannot be an infinite series of causes. We cannot just state that an infinite series is impossible because cosmology shows that the universe started with the Big bang just under 14 billion years ago because there is temporal causes a sequences of causes in time not sustaining causes the universe kind of thing that isn’t self sustaining and that it has a beginning shows that it does not first exist as an actuality but only as a potentiality brought into actuality so there must be something actual its beginning depends on. Even if this universe has a cause perhaps it was caused by a previous or another universe and so infinitely (circular). Hotel with infinite rooms cannot add any number to infinity and get a bigger number . We can apply the same point ot an infinite series of causes. The claim there cannot be an infinite series of cause is not an analytic truth. However issues arises in the form of paradoxes which if unable to resolve leads to self contradiction and anything that entails a contradiction must be false. But perhaps paradoxes are the result of limitations on how we are thinking about infinity. Mathematicians argue we are mistaken to apply intuitions about finite numbers to infinity. In both the first and second way if we remove the first cause no other causes follow but an infinite chain of causes isn’t like a finite chain of causes with the first cause removed it is simply a chain of causes in which every cause itself caused. Therefore the cosmological arguments don’t work deductively but they may be good inductive argument for a first cause

The Kalam argument

1. The universe is composed of temporal phenomena things that occur and exist in time that are preceded by other temporal phenomnea that are ordered in time

2. An infinite regress of temporal phenomena is impossible

3. Therefore the universe must have a beginning

4. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence

5. Therefore there is a cause of the existence of the universe

Descartes cosmological argument

I am a thinking thing with the idea of God – what is the cause of my existence?

• Option 1: Myself

  • I can’t be the cause of my own existence because if I was, I would have given myself all perfections (i.e. I would have caused myself to be omnipotent, omniscient, etc. In other words, I would have made myself God).

• Option 2: I have always existed

  • I can’t always have existed, because then I would be aware of this. Plus, there has to be something that sustains my existence – the fact that I existed a moment ago does not at all guarantee that I should continue existing.

• Option 3: My parents or some other being less than God

  • The cause of an effect must have as much reality as the effect (i.e. the causal adequacy principle from Descartes’ trademark argument). I am a thinking thing with the idea of God. And so the cause of my existence must have as much reality as a thinking thing with the idea of God.

• My parents might be the cause of me being born, but they don’t sustain my existence – i.e. they don’t keep me in existence moment to moment.

  • Plus, there can’t be an infinite regress of causes: If my parents were the cause of my existence, what caused them? And so on.

    • So, whatever ultimately is the cause of my existence, must be the cause of its own existence.

      • Whatever is the cause of its own existence is God.

• So, this only leaves option 4: God is the ultimate cause of my existence.

Leibniz sufficient reason

The principle of sufficient reason says that every truth has an explanation of why it is the case (even if we can’t know this explanation).Leibniz then defines two different types of truth:

• Truths of reasoning: this is basically another word for necessary or analytic truths

• Truths of fact: this is basically another word for contingent or synthetic truths

The sufficient reason for truths of reasoning (i.e. analytic truths) is revealed by analysis. When you analyse and understand “3+3=6”, for example, you don’t need a further explanation why it is true.

But it is more difficult to provide sufficient reason for truths of fact (i.e. contingent truths) because you can always provide more detail via more contingent truths. For example, you can explain the existence of a tree by saying someone planted a seed. But you could then ask why the person planted the seed, or why seeds exist in the first place, or why the laws of physics are the way they are, and so on. This process of providing contingent reasons for contingent facts goes on forever.

So, to escape this endless cycle of contingent facts and provide sufficient reason for truths of fact (i.e. contingent truths), we need to step outside the sequence of contingent facts and appeal to a necessary substance. This necessary substance is God, Leibniz says.

Pretty much everything needs an explanation

Russel fallacy of composition

allacy of composition is an invalid inference that because parts of something have a certain property, the entire thing must also have this property. Examples:

• Just because all the players on a football team are good, this doesn’t guarantee the team is good. For example, the players might not work well together.

• Just because a sheet of paper is thin, it doesn’t mean things made from sheets of paper are thin. For example, a book with enough sheets of paper can be thick.

Applying this to the cosmological argument, we can raise a similar objection to Hume’s above: just because everything within the universe has a cause, doesn’t guarantee that the universe itself has a cause.

Or, to apply it to Leibniz’s cosmological argument: just because everything within the universe requires sufficient reason to explain its existence, doesn’t mean the universe itself requires sufficient reason to explain its existence. Russell says: “the universe is just there, and that’s all.”

Possible response to fallacy of composition

• Ok, but everything within the universe exists contingently

• And if everything within the universe didn’t exist, then the universe itself wouldn’t exist either (because that’s all the universe is: the collection of things that make it up)

• So the universe itself exists contingently, not just the stuff within it

• And so the universe itself requires sufficient reason to explain its existence

Is the first cause God? +possible response

Aquinas’ first and second ways and the Kalam argument only show that there is a first cause. But they don’t show that this first cause is God. So, even if the cosmological argument is sound, it doesn’t necessarily follow that God exists.

This objection doesn’t work so well against Descartes’ version because he specifically reasons that there is a first cause and that this first cause is an omnipotent and omniscient God.

Similarly, you could argue that any being that exists necessarily (such as follows from Aquinas’ third way and Leibniz’s cosmological argument) would be God.