cosmological argument

how do cosmological arguments work and what principle do they all rely upon

• move from some observable, basic feature of the world eg. causation, movement, change to the existence of god

• usually involve a claim that an infinite series cannot exist in reality so something that caused them must exist

• all reply upon the principle that ‘nothing comes from nothing’

Which 4 arguments for and against does the spec want u to know?

• The Kalām argument (an argument from temporal causation).

• Aquinas' 1st Way (argument from motion), 2nd Way (argument from atemporal causation) and 3rd way (an argument from contingency).

• Descartes' argument based on his continuing existence (an argument from causation).

• Leibniz’s argument from the principle of sufficient reason (an argument from contingency).

Issues that may arise for the arguments above, including:

• the possibility of an infinite series

• Hume's objection to the 'causal principle'

• the argument commits the fallacy of composition (Russell)

• the impossibility of a necessary being (Hume and Russell).

kalam argument

The Kalam argument argues that everything that began to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause. Craig extends this argument and makes it more relevant to the God of theism by adding more reasons and intermediate conclusions. One reason he provides is that an infinite regress of causes is impossible, and for that the cause of the universe must be uncaused. Since he views the start of the universe as the start of space and time, the cause of the universe must also be non-spatial and timeless. It therefore must be personal as well, since the first cause must have actively started space and time without anything causing it to do so. God is the only being that fulfils the criteria of this cause. Therefore God exists.

Hume’s problem with infinite regress of causes/whatever begins to exist has a cause

An objection to cosmological arguments such as these is that it is possible for there to be an infinite series of causes, despite cosmological arguments depending on the premise that there must be a first cause for the universe. We cannot state that the universe has a cause as a necessary truth according to Hume’s fork as it would not be a contradiction to deny it. Therefore the only way we can know of it is a posteriori. However, we cannot go back in time to see if the universe has a cause, therefore showing the possibility of an infinite series of causes. Therefore, the premise that most cosmological arguments rely on (that there cannot be an infinite series of causes for the universe) is not necessarily true.

Aquinas’ first way (in an essay choose one of his ways)

Aquinas’ first way is the argument from motion. The universe contains motion. He understands motion as change - ie. something moving from the potential to the actual, such as water moving from potentially hot to actually hot when put on the stove. Change can only happen when moved by something – the water will only become hot when the stove is turned on. Therefore nothing can move/change itself. If there were an infinite series of secondary movers then there could not be a first mover. If there were no first mover then there could not be any motion/change - since if you remove the cause, there could not be an effect. Therefore, there cannot be an infinite series of movers and there must be a must be a first mover, which is unmoved. Everyone understands this mover to be God. Therefore, God exists.

aquinas second way

Aquinas’ second way is the argument from causation. Aquinas argues that we experience the world as a causal place, meaning that the world works through causes and effects. Nothing can causally depend on itself; this is logically impossible because causes necessarily exist before their effects so X could not have caused X to come into existence. Therefore, everything is caused by something other than itself. There is therefore a series of causes. If there was no first cause then there would be no series of causes. Therefore, the series of causes cannot be infinite. Therefore, there must be a first cause which is uncaused. Everyone understands this cause to be God. Therefore, God exists.

aquinas’ third way

• Aquinas’ third way is the argument from contingency. He argues that things in the universe exist contingently, meaning not only that it was possible for them not to exist, but at some point they did not exist. If it was the case that everything existed contingently, then at some point there was nothing. If at some point there was nothing at all, then the universe could never have come into existence as nothing can come from nothing. But things do exist, therefore there must be a being that exists not contingently, but necessarily.  Everyone understands this necessary being to be God. Therefore, God exists.

Descartes’ argument from causation

• asks what caused my existence?

• could not have been himself because otherwise he would have given himself all the perfections, which he does not have

• his existence at one time does not necessitate his existence at a future time

• therefore there must be a cause and sustainer of his existence

• he does not have that power so depends on something that does

• the trademark argument shows that the cause of him must be god

• there cannot be an infinite chain of dependency because whatever caused his existence also sustains it

• the cause and sustainer of his existence must be god

• about sustaining existence, not just what brought him into existence - about mind because he is talking about himself so biological process is not the answer here clearly

I exist as a being with an idea of a supremely perfect being. The only possible cause of my existence as such is God. I cannot be the cause of myself as I would then be God and I know I am not. No other being(s) could be the cause because either the question would be raised about them (leading to a regress) or they could not account for the idea of God that I have. Nor can I have no cause, as a cause is needed to sustain anything finite from one moment to the next.

hume on the causal principle and response

Hume objects to the ‘causal principle’ (the claim that everything has a cause, or in this case, was moved by something else) by applying Hume’s fork to the principle. Principles by definition express necessary truths that are applicable in every appropriate scenario. However, this ‘principle’ is not analytic or a necessary truth as we can deny it without contradicting ourselves – ie. it is not a contradiction to say ‘everything does not have a cause’ – so it is not a principle. Therefore, it is not necessarily true without exception, so we can’t know for sure whether everything has a cause or was moved by something already in motion. This is a posteriori knowledge which we can never be sure of as we do not have experience of everything that ever came into motion. 

the possibility of an infinite series

An objection to cosmological arguments such as these is that it is possible for there to be an infinite series of causes, despite cosmological arguments depending on the premise that there must be a first cause for the universe. We cannot state that the universe has a cause as a necessary truth according to Hume’s fork as it would not be a contradiction to deny it. Therefore the only way we can know of it is a posteriori. However, we cannot go back in time to see if the universe has a cause, therefore showing the possibility of an infinite series of causes. Therefore, the premise that most cosmological arguments rely on (that there cannot be an infinite series of causes for the universe) is not necessarily true.

liebniz principle of sufficient reason

Leibniz concludes that God exists through invoking the principle of sufficient reason and concluding that the sufficient reason must be God. The principle of sufficient reason states that for everything that exists contingently there must be a sufficient reason for why it exists. For contingently existing things, other reasons can be brought in that explain their existence – for example, to explain my height I might look at factors such as my genetics or diet – but these too are contingently existing things and not sufficient reasons. Therefore the universe is a series of contingently existing things which is itself contingent and does not contain the sufficient reason for any contingent fact. Therefore the sufficient reason must be a necessarily existing substance, which is God.

russell on the fallacy of composition

Russell argues that Liebniz is guilty of the fallacy of composition in his assertion that because things in the universe exist contingently, the universe itself exists contingently. This is not necessarily true to Russell and can lead to false conclusions. Using the same reasoning as Liebniz we would infer from the fact that each individual tissue is thin, that the box of tissues is thin – a conclusion which is not true and shows how the fallacy of composition leads to false conclusions. Therefore, Leibniz is wrong to conclude that the universe exists contingently from the fact that things in the universe exist contingently.

the impossibility of a necessary being

Many of the cosmological arguments such as Liebiz’ and Aquinas’ third way conclude that  God exists as a necessarily existing being. However the concept of a necessarily existing being may be objected to as if something is a necessary truth, it would be a contradiction to deny it. However, it is not a contradiction to deny that God, or any being, exists; stating ‘God does not exist’ can still be understood coherently. According to Hume, claims about existence are claims about the world so can only be known a posteriori. Nothing known a posteriori can, according to Hume, endow us with a necessary truth. Therefore, it is impossible for there to be a necessarily existing being.