Cosmological Argument

Hume’s Argument

1. Inductive reasoning only leads to probable conclusions.

2. We can gather evidence from previous experiences, but never be certain.

3. There is a small possibility that things like the sun rising, won’t happen for whatever reason.

4. Thus, Hume argues that although we have observed cause and effect in some part of nature, we can’t apply this principle to the whole universe.

5. When we apply this to anything outside our actual experience, we are making an inductive leap/assumption.

6. What we point out as cause and effect could simply be correlation.

7. Hume argues that although every husband must have a wife, not every man must be married.

Examples of Twenty Particles

1. Just because part of the universe has a cause, doesn’t mean the whole universe does - fallacy of composition.

2. The example is that we explain the reason for each of the twenty particles, but we don’t ask what the cause for the whole is.

Hume’s Assumptions/Questions

1. Is G-d a special case/transcendent being?

2. What is the cause of G-d?

3. Instead of the universe being contingent, could it be necessary.

4. Why not accept infinite regress?

5. Is it possible that the chain of causes has no beginning.

6. If we accept the universe has a cause, does it have to be the G-d of classical theism?

Responses to Hume’s Assumptions/Questions

1. What is the cause of G-d → G-d doesn’t have a cause, He is by definition, the first being to exist. It would be like asking, what the colour green smells like, an invalid question.

2. Why not accept infinite regress → Something has to push over a set of dominos, they don’t fall down by themselves.

3. Does it have to be the G-d of classical theism → The cosmological argument doesn’t claim to answer it, this can be proved by other means, such as the Kuzari Principle.

Supports Hume’s Criticisms

1. We don’t need to assume everything has a cause - the universe just exist.

2. Infinite regress does not have to be impossible as Aquinas claims.

3. Hume suggests that Aquinas is too reliant on inductive reasoning and the links between cause and effect are not certain. This challenges Aquinas’ Second Way because if there is no chain of cause and effect, there is no need to argue for a first cause.

Against Hume’s Criticisms

1. We collect observations from the past to make predictions about the future.

2. Anscombe argues that as humans, we always ask ‘why?’ or ‘what caused it?’ - it is a valid question.

3. Huma assumes infinite regress is possible, but you cannot verify it.

Frederick Copleston and Bertrand Russell Debate 1947

1. Copleston makes the argument from contingency.

He says G-d is necessary to ‘make sense of man’s moral experience’

2. Russell argues that there is no value in calling things contingent because ‘there isn’t anything else they could be’. He is essentially saying that nothing is contingent and everything’s existence is necessary.

He says that he cannot attribute ‘a Divine origin to this sense of moral obligation’, as it is ‘easily accounted for in other ways’.

Principle of Sufficient Reasoning

1. For every truth, there is sufficient reason why it is true.

2. There are two types of truths: necessary and contingent

3. It is impossible for the opposite of a necessary truth to be true.

4. So the sufficient reason for them can be discovered a priori.

5. It is possible for the opposite of a contingent truth so be true.

6. So the sufficient reason for contingent truths cannot be discovered through other contingent truths, because they too require a sufficient explanation, and so on.

7. The sufficient reason for contingent facts must be a necessary substance.

8. That necessary substance is God.

9. So, God exists.

Example of Geometry Books

1. Leibniz give the example of a geometry book that has always existed, one copy made from another.

2. We can explain the existence of each of the geometry books by the one it was copied from, but we can’t explain why these books exist at all.

3. This applies to the world as a whole, even if we can explain one state of the world by previous states, we lack an explanation of the world as a whole.

Strengths of Leibniz Principle

FILL IN

Weaknesses of Leibniz Principle

1. No real, empirical proof, relies on logic as opposed to observation.

2. FILL IN

Infinite Regression

1. There is an unlimited number of past events.

2. Aquinas said that it was not possible, and there must have been a beginning, a first event.

Three Arguments from Aquinas’s Summa Theologica

1. He has his five ways, which are five arguments for G-d.

2. Three of these ‘ways’ are cosmological arguments.

First Way: Argument from Motion

1. Every object has the potential to be in motion, or is actually in motion.

2. For something to go from potentiality to actuality, it must be moved by something in actuality

3. So, there must be something that has always been in actuality, otherwise there is the problem of infinite regress.

4. So there must be a first mover, G-d.

Quote from Summa Theologica for First Way

“It is necessary to arrive at a first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone understands to be G-d”.

Arguments for Aquinas’ First Way

1. It is based on observation and empiricism as opposed to revelation or faith.

2. It can be applied to virtually any object, so anyone can observe its truth - not esoteric.

Second Way: Argument from Efficient Cause

1. Everything has a cause, and nothing causes itself.

2. There cannot be an infinite regression of efficient causes.

3. So there must be a first cause, G-d.

Quote from Summa Theologica for Second Way

“Therefore it is necessary to suppose the existence of some first efficient cause, and this men call God.”

Third Way: Argument from Contingency

1. There are things in the universe that are capable of existing and not existing, contingent things.

2. It is impossible for everything to be contingent, because it means at some point nothing would exist, so nothing would exist now.

3. Therefore, there must have been a necessary being, G-d.

Quote from Summa Theologica for Third Way

“Therefore it is necessary to suppose the existence of something which is necessary in itself, not having the cause of its necessity from any outside source, but which is the cause of necessity in others. And this ‘something’ we call God.”

Aquinas’s Cosmological Argument is Convincing

1. There must be a series of movers and cannot have an infinite regression.

2. Needs to be an uncaused first cause.

Aquinas’s Cosmological Argument isn’t Convincing

1. Subatomic particles are not contingent on other things existence, so his premise that everything is contingent is wrong.

2. You can believe in an infinite regression.

3. Just because things in the universe are contingent doesn’t mean the universe is also contingent.

4. We cannot answer such a question such as ‘why does the world exist’, so don’t bother asking it, its not a valid question - Dawkins in his interview with Mehdi Hassan.

Kant on the Cosmological Argument.

1. Cosmological argument relies on the principle of causality.

2. This is a synthetic a priori concept (not from sensory observation, but is necessary for understanding observation).

3. Therefore, applying the principle of causality beyond the realm of possible observation, we cannot observe this ‘first mover’, applies a concept in an area where it is illogical to apply it.

Kalam Cosmological Argument

Put forward by Islamic theologians, and popularised by William Lane Craig.

1. Everything that begins to exist must have a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. The universe has a cause.

4. The cause is G-d.

Counter to Kalam Cosmological Argument

1. No proof of a personable G-d - even if this is correct it does not prove that there is a G-d who has the Biblical qualities we ascribe to it.

2. Since it denies infinity actually existing, it can’t base its argument on the opposite, an infinite G-d.

Counter to it not Leading to a Personable G-d

1. From the cosmological argument we know that G-d must be immaterial, spaceless and timeless.

2. Only two things fit this category, an unbodied mind and an abstract object like a number.

3. A number cannot cause anything.

4. Therefore it must be an unbodied mind - G-d.