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 argument tries to prove the existence of an uncaused, non spacial, timeless, personal cause of the universe

• original argument: whatever begins to exist has a cause. the universe began to exist, therefore the universe has a cause

• craig extends this argument to make it more convincing and relevant to the god of theism by including more premises and intermediate conclusions

• the first reason added is that an infinite regress of causes is impossible, and for that reason the universe must be uncaused

• in the way craig sets it out, the beginning of the universe must be the beginning of space and time, therefore this first cause must not only be uncaused but non spacial and timeless

• because it is timeless it must also have been personal to have caused the universe to exist

• the only being that fulfils this criteria is god

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

• not self-contradictory to deny this claim, so it does not state a necessary truth

• the claim mist be contingent therefore, so we cannot know its truth value a priori

• we can’t know it a posterieori because we cannot go back in time forever to see if everything has a cause

• so we have know way of knowing that whatever begins to exist has a cause/there cannot be an infinite regress of causes

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

• argument from motion (change- ie movement from potential to actual, ie. cold water has the potential to become hot and with heating it changes to become hot)

• change can only be brought about by something that is actual eg. cold water will not get hot unless hob is turned on

• must be caused by a mover

1. objects are actually in motion

2. whatever moves is moved by something ie. a cause. something potential can only be made actual by something that is already actual

3. therefore everything which is actually in motion was put in motion by some other thing already in motion

4. therefore nothing can move itself

5. the series of movers cannot go back infinitely therefore

6. there was a fisrt mover which, since first is unmoved

7. everyone understands this mover to be god

8. therefore god exists

 Aquinas understood these arguments as deductive demonstrations of a ‘vertical’ sustaining cause of (a) motion/causation at any given moment and/or (b) the series of causes as a whole (even if this is an infinite temporal series)

aquinas second way

• argument from CAUSATION - impossibility of infinite set of causes, there must have been a first cause and this is god

• we experience the world as a causal place - ie. the world works through causes and effects

• nothing can causally depend on itself - because causes necessarily occur before their effects so self causation would require x to exist before x occured which is logicaly impossible

• therefore everyhting is caused by something other than itself

• therefore there is a series of causes

• if there was no first cause there could not be a series of causes

• therefore the series of causes cannot be infinite

• therefore there is a first cause

• everyone calls this first cause god

• therefore god exists

aquinas’ third way

• argument from contingency

• contingent existence: if it is possible for it not to exist

• necessary existence: if it is not possible for it not to exist

• things in the universe exist contingently

• if it is possible for something to not exist, then at some time it does not exist

• if everything exists contingently, then it is possible that at some time there was nothing in existence

• if at some time there was nothing in existence, then nothing could begin to exist

• since things do exist, there is something that does not exist contingently but exists necessarily

• this necessary being is god

• god exists

P1: Contingent beings exist in the universe.

P2: If everything were contingent there would be a time when nothing existed.

P3: If this were so, there would be nothing now as nothing comes from nothing.

P4: Since contingent things do exist now (P1), there must be something that exists necessarily.

C: Therefore there must be something that exists necessarily

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

causal principle= claim that everything has a cause

not analytic - we can deny it without contradicting ourselves, ‘something can come out of nothing’ is not a contradiction as we can conceive of it

our experience supports these claims so they are probs true

but they are not universally true without excpetion - so we can’t know that everything has a cause

apply this to the specific arguments about sustaining causes/no experience of begining of the universe

RESPONSE: yeah but its probable, so these arguments are weaker but we have a very good reason to accept the premise that everything has a cause

the possibility of an infinite series

• hume’s fork on this, neither analytic nor verifiable a priori

• also even if this universe had a start (big bang) what’s to say there wasn’t a universe before it causing this series of events

• Physicist A. Guth’s ‘inflation’ theory proposes an eternally existing ‘quantum soup’ of energy. The energy fluctuations can sometimes create a universe, which would explain the big bang.

• Hume argues that an infinite series doesn’t need an explanation. The series itself is nothing over and above its members, which are each fully explained by the member which came before them.

liebniz principle of sufficient reason

• everything in the universe exists contingently, so why did it occur?

• relies upon principle of sufficient reason: for every contingent thing that exists, there must be a sufficient reason why it exists

• for contingent truths (ie. truths about physical objects), reasons can be given in more and more detail but all this detail only brings in contingent facts eg. explain my height, look at factors such as… but these are all contingent facts that need to be further explained

• therefore a series of contingent facts is itself contingent and does not contain the sufficient reason for any contingent fact

• threrefore to look for a sufficient reason for any contingent fact we must look outside contingent facts

• so the sufficient reason for contingent facts must be in a necessary substance

• the necessary substance is god as god is a sufficient reason for all this detail

• therefore god exists and god is sufficient

russell on the fallacy of composition

• accepts that science can give us an explanantion of why certain things exist in the universe, but rejects the claims made in the cosmological arguments that we can do the same for the universe

• fallacy of composition: false inference that because the parts have some property, the whole thing has that property too. eg. just because each tissue is thin, so to is the box of tissues. thus we can’t infer from the contingent existence of each thing in the universe that the whole universe is contingent

• apply to liebniz and aquinas 3rd wave

• respone: sometimes inferring from parts to whole does not always lead to flawed conclusion. eg. each part of desk is wooden so whole desk is wooden. if every part of the universe ceased to exist, so would the wholse unioverse. because everything is contingent in the iniverse, the universe is contingent. as a contingent being, the universe requires the existence of some necessary being

• vs. hume - yes but maybe it is engergy/matter - law of conservation of energy

• vs. empirical evidence suggests it was created during big bang

• so deductive arguments

the impossibility of a necessary being

• targets conclusion that some beings exist necessarily

• hume’s fork - not a contradiction to deny the existence of something - claims about what exists are matters of fact and are a posteriori verifyable

• explain why not a contradiction to deny god’s existence

• vs descartes and malcolm’s ontological arguments