Cosmological argument

What is the cosmological argument?

Whatever begins to exist has a cause; the universe began to exist; therefore, the universe has a cause

What is Aristotle argument for a prime mover?

The necessary 1st source of movement which in itself is unmoved and brings about the movement of things that proceed it

What is the prime mover for Aristotle?

Necessary 1st source of movement which in itself is unmoved=GOD

Being with everlasting life

How did Aristotle believe God lived?

Necessarily-non-continent being= never changing and eternal

How can we prove the existence of the prime mover?

Empirical evidence

What are Aristotle's 4 causes?

1. Material Cause-made of

2. Formal Cause-structure

3. Efficient Cause-happened prior to it

4. Final Cause-purpose

What do the 4 causes reveal about God?

You cannot describe God this way as God isn't a contingent being but the creator

What is the final cause of the universe?

Creator God

What are the weaknesses of Aristotle's cos argument?

Contradicts itself (everything is caused, but not God)

Cannot be empirical with God

4 causes doesn't mean God exists=cannot use it to prove God

What type of argument is the Kalam argument?

Deductive, a priori

State the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The Universe began to exist. Therefore, the Universe has a cause.

Who edited the Kalam argument and what did they add?

William Lane Craig

Added further point that the cause must be a personal cause which itself is outside of nature- a timeless supernatural cause as the laws of nature cannot have created themselves

What did Aquinas develop?

The 5 ways- quinquae viae

What was the first way?

Argument from motion-unmoved mover

Nothing can move itself and there cannot be an infinite regress of things changing other things so there must be a first changer that prime mover is God

Aquinas quote for argument from motion

"THE CHAIN OF MOVERS CANNOT GO ON TO INFINITY BECAUSE THEN THERE WOULD BE NO FIRST MOVER AND CONSEQUENTLY NO OTHER MOVER"

What is the second way?

Argument from efficient cause-uncaused causer

Everything has a cause, nothing causes itself, cannot be an infinite regress of causes, must be a 1st cause to start it all that is God

Why does Aquinas believe an infinite regress of causes is impossible?

Without a cause to start the process, there would be no effects

What is the third way?

Argument from necessity and contingency- everything in world is contingent, if things exist there must be some time when they didn't, there must have been some time when nothing existed and as things exist now there must be something things depend on for its existence which is necessary/non-contingent=God

Strengths of the 5 ways

Demonstrate the existence of a God-not a Christian God so applicable to all religions (links to John Hick 1 real)

Observations back up the arguments that everything had a cause

What did Leibniz develop?

Principle of sufficient reason- nothing takes place without a good reason going against the notion of "brute facts"

What is a proximate reason?

Incomplete explanation

What is a sufficient reason?

Complete or ultimate explanation

What is the universe's existence sufficient reason according to Leibinz?

God

Aquinas quote for the unmoved mover?

"Nothing can come from nothing"

Why is God the sufficient reason?

As no other explanation is as sufficient as we have contingent beings so a necessary being is required

Does Leibniz say we always know the sufficient reason?

We do not but that does not matter as whether we can solve it or not, there is always a sufficient explanation and as rational creatures are entitled to seek it

Why does Leibniz think science could never be a sufficient reason?

For him, science is always a proximate answer for the universe and that there is no possibility of a scientific breakthrough providing a better explanation

What example does Leibniz provide?

Geometry book- if you asked where the book came from you wouldn't be satisfied with a proximate answer of it being copied from a previous book - you want a sufficient reason as you want to know why ALL books exist

State 3 weaknesses of Leibniz's argument?

1. Just because we want a habit doesn't mean there is one (David Hume-"habit to look for an answer") GOD OF THE GAPS APPROACH

2. Detaching from science=weak argument than others

3. Hume argues can imagine something coming into existence without a cause ( a possibility)

State a strength of Leibniz's argument?

1. Strong deductive proof which isn't at mercy of new scientific discoveries

2.Avoids problems of infinite regress and cause and effect unlike other arguments

What is the overwhelming weakness of the Cosmological argument?

Only provides for those who already believe as it won't convince a non-believer. Can only add to pre existing faith not create it

What are the 3 characters/their role which David Hume made?

Demea-faith position

Cleanthes-uses logic to support belief of God

Phil- put forward Hume's own position

What is Hume's criticism for cause and effect/necessity?

Can't the universe itself be necessary

Criticises them of making an inductive leap from metaphysical claims to it being the answer- don't know enough (does the universe even need to be created?)

What does Hume suggest causation is?

"Habit of the mind"

Doubtful that everything has a cause we make casual connections

Hume's criticism for God being the causer?

Once you've explained each event in the world as to what caused it, you have provided all the explanation needed

Don't need to explain the universe when you've everything everything within it

What is Kant's criticism of the cosmological argument?

Cannot go from empirical evidence to metaphysical claims as he feels God is beyond the world of senses

What does Kant develop?

3 types of necessity (logical,metaphysical and factual) of which God cannot be any

Cannot be logical as like Hume said you can imagine a universe with no God so existence is not logical

Rules cosmological argument as irrelevant as God is not any form of a necessity

What does Russell argue in criticism?

Universe is a BRUTE FACT so we doesn't need a reason t exist

It is just there and we don't need to find an explanation for the universe's existence

What does Copleston argue in support of the cosmological argument?

God is an unmoved moved and responsible for the universe (uses Leibinz and Aquinas ideas)

Without an explanation the world is GRATUITOUS being without reason/purpose (God provides that purpose)

What type of existence is the world believed to have and the implications of that?

Contingent existence and thus couldn't have bought itself into existence so cannot exist as a brute fact

What did Aquinas say over explaining how parts of the world came to exist?

Said it's possible to explain how parts of the world come to exist (e.g., individual humans coming from parents) but that explaining each individual part on its own does not provide an explanation for how the whole world came to exist

Why does Aquinas think infinite regress is logically impossible?

Train analogy- movement of train not explained by existence of infinite number of carriages but the existence of an engine- something clearly different to the carriages and able to create and sustain movement of the whole train

ULTIMATELY NEED FOR A FIRST CAUSE WHICH CAN PROVIDE EXPLANATION FOR WHOLE WORLD AND NOT JUST PARTS

Explain the Kalam causal argument?

States that the universe has a beginning in time and this beginning means there is a need for an explanation. If the world always existed, an explanation would not be needed but this is not the case.

What did Leibniz argue there needs to be?

An explanation for why the world exists instead of nothing. He states that even if the world had always existed, an explanation would still be necessary.

What do both Russell and Hume argue?

That there's no such thing as a necessary being. Saying it's 'meaningless' and ;impossible' as the only necessary things are those which it would be 'self-contradictory' to deny.

What type of explanation do both Hume and Russell find satisfactory?

A partial explanation

What does Kant argue to be logically impossible?

To make a leap from our perceptive about the existence of the world to making metaphysical claims about its cause.

Why does Kant reject the idea of necessary existence?

As he argues that even if God is this necessary being, it would not mean he exists as proving God is the necessary being is different to saying this being exists

Aquinas and movement?

He argues that something cannot cause something else without being moved itself. The logic does not always seem to work as someone can kill someone else and cause them to be dead without being dead themselves. Linking to his example of head, things are often made hot today through electricity which is not hot itself

What example does Aquinas use for movement?

Something cannot make something else hot without being hot itself

Why do both Hume and Russell think that the argument from infinite regress is not illogical?

Because the world could be without a cause and therefore cause and effect could regress infinitely

Main criticism to Aquinas' argument?

The type of God whose existence he is attempting to prove is not necessarily the God of classical theism. He fails to show the many characteristics and attributes that most Christians believe Him to have.

Quote on Hume rejecting the notion of necessary existence?

He says it has 'no meaning' as it'll 'always be possible for us at any time to conceive the non-existence of something we formerly conceived to exist

What does Hume say is not analytically true?

That every effect has a cause

They are not known a priori but a posteriori through constant conjunction so cannot be arbitrarily applied outside areas of human experience

Hume and fallacy of composition in relation to the cosmological argument?

We do not need to know the cause of the entire world as the explanation is explained is contained with the parts

Hume-fallacy of composition quote?

"the cause of the world is sufficiently explained by explaining the parts of the world"

What does Russell say in relation to the logic of the argument?

The logic used means that God must have a cause which contradicts the notion of a necessary and noncontingent being

Russell quote?

'I should say that the universe is just there, and that's all'

What problem did Hume raise?

PROBLEM OF INDUCTION that we have no rational basis for expecting future to resemble the past as just because cause has always produced certain effects in past does not mean can be sure will produce them in future

Issues with basing knowledge on experience (issues with cos argument as it is based on experience)?

Only have partial knowledge-what we perceive mat not represent what things are like

We're biased in our view

May be limits on what we are capable of understanding

What did Hume say linking to experience/

We have no experience of the universe being made so cannot talk meaningfully about its creation

What does motion mean?

Going from state of potential to actual and everything has to make that move as cannot be both at once (hot and cold link with not being both at once and having to make that movement)

What does Aquinas' 3rd way show?

Nothing stands on its own

What did Leibniz say was irrational?

Not to look for explanations of things

State Leibniz's line of argument

Contingent facts about the world have an explanation and they cannot be explained by other contingent things but something necessary

What type of conclusion are indictive arguments only able to reach?

Probable conclusions as only show likely existence not certain existence

Big bang theory link to brute fact?

As it is a singular event with no before or after or cause or effect

Issue with contingency argument observed by Hume?

Hume asked why can't the universe itself be necessary=fallacy of composition link which Hume accuses the argument of committing

Ayer and religious lang link?

Ayer states it meaningful to say some things cause other things but when you move to describe something outside the universe which cannot be perceived by our 5 senses, you move to a meaningless statement

How does the big bang theory help prove existence?

Links to Kalam argument that the universe has a beginning

How does the big bang theory NOT help prove existence?

Not prove the story of Genesis

What is Kant's phenomen and noumenon?

P-reality we experience via senses

N-reality as it actually is

Implication of phenomen and noumenon on Aquinas?

Means that no matter how much motion or causation we see going on in the universe we cannot draw conclusions of the n (actual reality)