AQA A Level Religious Studies - The Cosmological Argument

Who developed the Cosmo argument and in which text?

• Aquinas
• Summa Theologica, Way 3

Is the Cosmo argument a posteriori or a priori? Define both.

The Cosmo argument is an a posteriori argument which depends on sense experience and empirical evidence through the five senses. Aquinas observed the universe and sense experience validated its existence and properties.

A priori means the argument relies on logical deduction, not sense experience.

Is the Cosmo argument inductive or deductive? Define both.

Inductive, meaning the premises support strong evidence towards a probable conclusion

Deductive, meaning if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true.

Is the cosmo argument formed from synthetic or analytic statements? Define both.

Synthetic statements, meaning their truth rely on sense experience.

Analytic statements are those that are true by the meaning of the words used.

Define subject and predicate.

Subject- what or who the sentence is about.

Predicate- gives information about the subject.

Define necessary and contingent truths.

Necessary truth- a proposition that could not have possibly been false.

Contingent truth- a proposition that happens to be true but could have been false.

Define necessary and contingent things.

Necessary thing- something that could not have possibly failed to exist.

Contingent thing- something that does not necessarily exist so could have not existed.

Define cosmos.

This time-space universe.

Why was Aquinas fascinated with the universe?

He thought that even the basic processes do not explain themselves- e.g the galaxy. He observed that the universe moves and changes and these changes are due to cause and effect.

What did Aquinas deduce from his observations? (hint: contingent + necessary).

All things in the universe are contingent. They are moved, changed and caused and could have failed to exist. All living things inside of the universe die. Since the Big Bang, the universe is expanding and changing and nothing remains the same.

Therefore, something must exist necessarily and outside of the universe for it to be caused. This necessary thing cannot be observed within the universe.

Outline the first three premises of Aquinas' argument.

p1. Everything can exist or not-exist- everything within the natural world is contingent.
p2. If everything is contingent, there would have been a time when nothing existed

there was nothing.
p3. If there was once nothing, nothing could have come from nothing.

Outline the first conclusion drawn.

c1. Something must exist necessarily- otherwise, nothing would now exist.

Outline the next two premises.

p4. Everything necessary must be caused or uncaused.
p5. But the series of necessary beings cannot be infinite.

Outline the final two conclusions.

c2. There must be an uncaused being which exists of its own necessity.
c3. This is God.

What does Aquinas mean when he says 'If everything is contingent, then at some time there was nothing'?

All contingent beings live and die- they do not exist eternally. Therefore, there would have been a time when nothing existed- this would mean nothing could now exist. So something must exist necessarily.

Translate 'out of nothing nothing can come' into latin.

'Ex nihilo nihil fit'

Why is it unlikely that there might have been an infinite series of caused necessary beings?

There would be no ultimate cause of this series and so no cause at all.

What is the solution to this? Give a quote.

There must have been an uncaused necessary being- 'This all men speak of is God'.

State the difference between caused necessary beings and uncaused necessary beings.

caused- depends on something to bring about its existence and is everlasting
uncaused- it cannot not-exist and its essence is to exist.

What is a fallacy?

An error in reasoning that makes an argument invalid.

Define fallacy of composition.

Assuming something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of part of the whole, or every part of the whole.

Give an example of an argument which commits the fallacy of composition.

Hydrogen is not wet, oxygen is not wet.
Therefore, H2O is not wet.

Explain the first criticism from Russell - Aquinas commits the fallacy of composition.

• Russell aiming argument at Aquinas' Way 2-
  1). Every single event in the universe is caused
  2). The universe as a whole has a cause

Russell argues there's no problem in thinking:
1). Every single event in the universe is caused
2). The universe as a whole is uncaused

Further, Aquinas makes the case that-
1). Everything in the universe is contingent
2). The universe as a whole is contingent

Russell argues:
1). Everything in the universe is contingent
2). The universe as a whole is necessary

Give Russell's example of an argument which commits the fallacy of composition.

Every man who exists has a mother. Therefore the human race must have a mother- 2 completely different logical spheres.

How could Russell's claim be refuted?

Russell's claim is valid in that Aquinas commits the fallacy of composition: e.g all the bricks in the wall are small so the wall must be small = incorrect.
However, this does not apply to all arguments:
'The wall is built of bricks, so the wall is brick.' - not fallacious.
Reichenbach suggests Way 3 resembles this argument.

• the universe is built from contingent things, so the universe is contingent. If what made up the universe ceased to exist, the universe too could cease to exist.

Explain the second criticism: Hume and Russell reject the claim that any being can exist necessarily.

• any being that exists could also not exist
• there is no contradiction in thinking that any being does not exist
• therefore, no contradiction in saying, 'God does not exist'
• Hume holds that Aquinas uses false logic
• when Aquinas states 'God exists necessarily'- he suggests God's existence is 'logically' necessary
• Hume, therefore, holds that all statements about God's existence are synthetic (sense experience) - cannot be analytic
• Aquinas supposes his claim is analytic but that can never be completely proven
• unicorns exist, God exists, Hume exists = all require sense experience to validate existence.
  !!Aquinas attempts to use an argument based on a posteriori, however, it is really a priori and analytic. We can never prove God's existence using analytic statements!!

What did Aquinas say in response to Hume (and Russell)?

• 'God exists necessarily' is a metaphysical necessity, not a logical necessity
• claims of metaphysical necessity are claims about the way things 'really are'.
• e.g. whatever is water, is H2O - this is a metaphysical necessity, the essence of water. However, all bachelors are unmarried males is logically true by definition.
  So, in our experience, everything is contingent.
  This requires a necessary being whose existence is its essence. This is God.

Define metaphysical necessity.

A form of necessity that derives from the nature or essence of things.

Explain the third criticism: Hume suggests that the universe itself may be a necessarily-existent being.

• this criticisms aligns with Occam's Razor: entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily - it is simpler to deal with one entity (matter) than 2 (mind + matter)
• why can't the necessary 'thing' be the matter which makes up the universe?

Explain Aquinas' response to Hume.

• Aquinas had no problem with the idea that matter might exist necessarily but he believed that matter would still be a caused necessary thing and God, an uncaused necessary being who would cause the universe's existence.

Outline one weakness of the cosmo argument along with its counter-argument. (Hint: infinite regress)

Weakness:

• there could be an infinite regress (indefinite sequence of causes or beings which does not have a first member of the series) of contingent beings, without the need for a necessary being

Counter-argument:

• this would still not explain why there is something today, rather than nothing
• when we look for explanations in the world, we generally find them, or expect to find them
• this implies the universe does have an explanation for its own existence
• and although we can understand the idea of an infinite sequence in mathematics, we have no evidence the universe works in this way