cosmological argument

what is cosmology?

• the study of nature and order in the universe

what are the 5 ways?

• the several arguments aquinas’ wrote for the existance of god

• the first three form the cosmological argument

what is each way designed to prove?

• that the existance of god is entiely necessary wether that be from 1) motion

• 2)cause

• 3)necessity and contingency

what is the argument?

• inductive and apriori

define contingent?

• contingent beings or things are dependent for their existance on other beings or things

define necessary?

• necessary beings or things are not dependent for their existance on other beings or things

what are Aquinas’ observations in way three?

• same as Paley - a posteriori and inductive. Aquinas observes that the universe exists - we can see the stars etc.

• all things that we see in the universe are contingent: they are moved, changed and caused - they need not exist, but they do

• all living things die - stars can explode and create stars from the debris, our bodies rot and become compost for new life. nothing stays the same therefore everything is contingent

• from the observation that everything is contingent - Aquinas concluded that somthing must exist. if everything we see is contingent then the cause of the universe must be outside it

• there is nothing in what we observe wich can explain why contingent things exist

• therefore Aquinas deduces that this external reason must be itself necessary

what is the cosmological argument?

• everything we know of in the natural world is contingent (it could either exist or not exist)

• if everything is contingent then at sometime there was nothing because there must have been a time when nothing had begun to exist

• nothing can come from nothing

• conclusion 1 - therefore there is at least one thing that exists necessarily

• everything necessary must be either caused or uncaused

• the series of necessary beings cannot be infinite

• conclusion 2 - therefore there must be some uncaused being which exists of its own necessity

• conclusion 3 - the most natural way to understand this being is as god

what is fallacy of composition?

• it was preposed by Bertrand Russel

• once aquinas had put all the parts together it was discovered he made an error (a fallacy)

• just because parts of the universe are Contingent doesn’t mean it all is

what is Russell criticism of the cosmological argument?

• Russel states that Aquinas’ way three commits the fallacy of composition

• an example of this is: all the bricks in the wall are small therefore the wall is small. this is clearly a fallacy

• russel links this to Aquinas’ logic as Aquinas states that everything in the universe is contingent. the universe as a whole is therefore contingent.

• Russel rejects this and states that why can’t the universe be necessary? why can’t the universe just be a brute fact?

• it has always existed and always will

what is Coppelstons defence for the cosmological argument?

• Coppelston suggests that Aquinas’ way three does not commit the fallacy of composition and that Russel is wrong to assume this

• for example: the wall is built out of bricks so the wall is brick. this is clearly not a fallacy because the whole has the same quality as its part. this seemingly does not commit.

• if the things that make up the universe can cease to exist, then the universe itself can cease to exist. After all the universe is only a sum of its parts

What is Humes critisism of the cosmological argument?

• Hume rejects the idea of necessary beings, being the logical conclusion to the argument

• all statements about exsistance are synthetic, they are based on sense experience, so concluding that god is a necessary being cannot analytically be true (logically)

• we think of 2+2=4 because that is logically true and undeniable. we can test this as its within our sense experiance

• we do not have to suppose that some object has to remain in existence so the words necessary being have no meaning. way three makes the same mistake as the ontological argument is taking a synthetic idea and turning it analytic. how can we test gods existence? surely its beyond our understanding.

what is Aquinas’ defence of the cosmological argument?

• Aquinas’ third way doesn’t claim that gods existence is logically necessary. this is what the ontological argument tries to prove. Aquinas actually rejected reasoning used in the ontological argument instead Aquinas is claiming that god is metaphysically necessary

• meta physics: the true nature of somthing

• eg. all bachelors are unmarried men. this is logically true. its true by definition

• water is made up of H2O its metaphysically necessary. when we seek the true nature of its basis its H2O

• Aquinas is arguing that for is a metaphysically necessary being. when we seek the nature of the world, god is the uncaused, unmoved, necessary being without which the world wouldn’t exist.

• gods exsistance then is beyond logic, god cannot exist

what is the steady state theory as a criticism of the cosmological argument?

• it counts against the third way (contingency/necessity)

• the universe is eternal. the matter of the universe in some form has always existed

• it is the opposite view to creationism as it says that the universe has no beginning or end

• ‘the universe is a huge self-regulating, self sustaining mechanism, with the capacity to self organise ad infinitum’ the cosmic blue print - Paul Davies

Aquinas’ responce to a necessary world as a defence of the cosmological argument?

• Aquinas states that the matter of the universe being necessary is a possibility … however utterly, the universe does require an uncaused cause as its origin. you cannot have inifinate regress of causes and you need an uncaused necessary being at the begining. nothing can come of nothing. equally the idea that the world is ‘just here’ and always will be is a satisfactory scientific explanation. surely we as beings wish to find the origins of the universe. why can’t that be god.