cosmological argument

"Why is there something rather than nothing?" - L

The cosmological argument claims God's existence explains why anything exists at all

What is the cosmological argument?

An a posteriori argument that observes the world and concludes a necessary being (God) is the ultimate explanation

Two main types of cosmological arguments

Arguments from causation and arguments from contingency

Aquinas' 1st Way: Argument from motion

Everything in motion must be moved by another; there must be a first unmoved mover (God)

Key premises of Aquinas' 1st Way

1. We observe motion.

2. Motion actualises potential.

3. Nothing moves itself.

4. No infinite regress; a first mover must exist.

Aquinas' 2nd Way: Argument from causation

There must be a first uncaused cause to explain the existence of all causes and effects (God)

Key premises of Aquinas' 2nd Way

1. We observe efficient causation.

2. Nothing can cause itself.

3. No infinite regress; a first cause must exist

Two types of causation in Aquinas' argument

Sustaining (per se, vertical) and temporal (per accidens, horizontal)

Temporal causation (per accidens)

A sequence of causes over time where effects continue without the original cause (e.g., generations of humans)

Sustaining causation (per se)

A hierarchy of causes where all depend on a first cause acting continuously (e.g., a hand moving a stick)

Why can temporal causation be infinite but sustaining causation cannot?

Sustaining causation requires an ongoing source; without a first cause, nothing could exist now

Aquinas' analogy for sustaining causation

A hand moves a stick to move a stone; without the hand, no movement occurs

What does "first cause" mean in Aquinas' argument?

Not temporally first but ontologically first; the source of all dependent causes

Aquinas' view on infinite regress

Temporal regress could be infinite, but sustaining causation must have a first cause

Feser's paintbrush analogy for sustaining causation

A brush with an infinitely long handle still needs a hand to move it

Copleston on the necessity of a first cause

Without a first unmoved mover, no motion or causal activity could occur now

Key criticism of the cosmological argument

Why must the first cause be God? Why not an impersonal force or necessary universe?

Strength of the cosmological argument

Provides a rational basis for a necessary being as the ultimate explanation of existence

Alternative explanation to the cosmological argument

The universe might be self-sufficient and require no external cause

What does the cosmological argument aim to establish?

A necessary being (God) as the fundamental explanation of all existence

What is the focus of the Kalam cosmological argument?

The coming into being of the universe, involving temporal causation in a horizontal sequence of events

Who brought the Kalam cosmological argument to prominence and when?

W. L. Craig in the late 20th century

What are the premises and conclusion of the Kalam cosmological argument?

• P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause

• P2: The universe began to exist

• C1: The universe has a cause

What further inferences does Craig draw from the Kalam argument?

The cause of the universe must be God: omnipotent, timeless, and spaceless

What principle supports the first premise of the Kalam argument?

The metaphysical principle that something cannot come from nothing

Why does Craig reject an infinite regress?

Actual infinities lead to absurdities and an infinite sequence cannot be traversed

How does Craig illustrate the impossibility of an actual infinite?

Using the infinite library paradox where infinite subsets are paradoxically equal in size to the whole

What scientific evidence supports the Kalam argument?

The Big Bang theory, suggesting a beginning to the universe

What is a common counter-argument to the Kalam argument?

The universe could have always existed in some form, implying no need for a first cause

What is Hume's stance on infinite regress

Infinite regress cannot be ruled out a priori as time is not necessarily finite

How does Cantor counter Craig's argument about actual infinities?

Infinite sets have unique properties, and one-to-one correspondence is not absurd

What scientific theories challenge the Kalam argument?

Eternal cyclic universes and Alan Guth's inflation theory

How do Aquinas and Leibniz defend cosmological arguments against infinite regress?

They argue an infinite series still requires a necessary being or primary cause

How does scientific progress challenge cosmological arguments?

Science has shown metaphysical intuitions about reality to often be incorrect

What quote from Shakespeare is used to criticise the cosmological argument?

"There are more things in heaven and earth... than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

What is the causal principle in cosmological arguments?

The causal principle states that every event must have a cause; "ex nihilo nihil fit" (nothing comes from nothing), an idea traced back to Parmenides

What is William Lane Craig's view on the causal principle?

Craig argues the causal principle is based on the metaphysical intuition that "something cannot come out of nothing."

How does Hume challenge the causal principle?

Hume argues the causal principle isn't analytic because denying it isn't a contradiction, and it's not synthetic because we can't observe the universe's origin

What is Hume's fork, and how does it apply to the causal principle?

Hume's fork divides knowledge into analytic (true by definition) and synthetic (based on experience); he argues the causal principle fits neither

How do Swinburne and Leibniz support the causal principle?

They argue it is a posteriori, based on empirical observation that everything we've observed has a cause

How does Hume counter the empirical support for the causal principle?

He claims we can't infer the universe's origin from within-universe observations; we lack direct evidence of origins

How does Aquinas defend the causal principle?

Aquinas focuses on secondary causation, arguing that secondary causes necessarily require primary causes

What is the distinction between Aquinas' and the Kalam argument?

Kalam claims the whole universe needs a cause, while Aquinas argues observed secondary causes require a primary cause

How does modern science challenge the causal principle?

Back: Quantum mechanics suggests some events occur without causes, undermining the necessity of causation

What does Russell argue against the causal principle?

He points to quantum events as examples of causeless occurrences, implying the universe could be similar

What does inflation theory suggest about the universe's origin?

It posits the universe's total energy is zero, meaning it could arise without external cause ("ultimate free lunch")

How does Leibniz' Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) support the cosmological argument?

PSR states that everything must have a sufficient reason for existing, which ultimately leads to a necessary being

What is Aquinas' Third Way argument from contingency?

It argues that contingent beings require a necessary being to explain their existence

What is a key objection to Aquinas' Third Way?

Critics argue an infinite regress of contingent beings could exist without requiring a necessary being

How does Leibniz argue against infinite regress?

even an infinite series of contingent beings requires an external necessary being to provide sufficient reason for existence

How does Leibniz' geometry book analogy support his argument?

He argues that copying an eternal book series still doesn't explain why the book exists in the first place, requiring an ultimate explanation

What distinguishes contingency from necessity in cosmological arguments?

Contingent beings depend on external causes; necessary beings exist by their own nature and cannot cease to exist

What is the fallacy of composition?

The assumption that what is true of a thing's parts is also true of the whole; e.g., just because parts of the universe have explanations doesn't mean the universe as a whole does

How does Russell illustrate the fallacy of composition?

"Every man has a mother; therefore, the human race must have a mother." This analogy shows the logical error of assuming collective properties

How does Edward Feser respond to the fallacy of composition criticism?

He argues Aquinas' cosmological argument only applies to beings we experience, not the universe as a whole

What is Copleston's defence of the cosmological argument against the fallacy of composition?

Cosmological arguments don't necessarily infer from parts to the whole, especially Leibniz's argument based on the principle of sufficient reason

How do Leibniz and Aquinas avoid the fallacy of composition?

They argue the whole series of contingent beings requires explanation due to the impossibility of infinite regress.

What is Hume's critique of the need for an explanation of a series?

A series is just a mental construct; each part having an explanation suffices, with no need for an overarching cause

How does Hume's particle analogy challenge the cosmological argument?

A collection of particles, finite or infinite, doesn't need an explanation beyond its parts' explanations

What is Russell's view on applying causation to the universe?

Causation is derived from individual things, and we have no reason to apply it to the total universe

How does the concept of brute fact challenge the cosmological argument?

Russell argues the universe "just is," with no need for an explanation beyond itself

How does Aquinas' concept of a sustaining series counter Hume and Russell?

Sustaining series involve objective causal dependence, not mental constructions, requiring a primary cause

Why does Aquinas argue sustaining causation is necessary?

Secondary causes depend on a primary cause; even an infinite series requires a first mover

What is a criticism of sustaining causation?

It may not actually exist; all observed causation could be temporal, making a primary cause unnecessary

What is Hume's argument against a necessary being?

We can conceive of any being not existing, so no being's existence can be logically necessary

How does metaphysical necessity counter Hume's argument?

God's necessity is metaphysical, not logical; necessary to explain causation and contingency

How does Swinburne and Hick's view weaken Hume's critique?

They argue God isn't logically necessary but still necessary in an ontological sense

What is Hume's final counter to the cosmological argument?

If something necessary must exist, it could be matter or the universe itself, not necessarily God

How does modern cosmology provide an alternative to God as a necessary being?

Eternal quantum energy could be the necessary being rather than God, undermining the argument

What philosophical principle underlies Leibniz's cosmological argument?

The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR): everything must have an explanation, even the universe

What is the core debate between cosmological argument defenders and critics?

Whether the universe as a whole requires an explanation beyond its contingent parts

What are the implications of rejecting the cosmological argument?

What are the implications of rejecting the cosmological argument? Back: Accepting the universe as a brute fact, undermining the pursuit of ultimate explanations