the cosmological argument

kalam cosmological argument (from temporal causation)

P1. everything with a beginning must have a cause

P2. the universe has a beginning

C1. the universe must have a cause

P3. science cannot explain causes of the universe

C2. God is the cause of the universe

C3. God exists

Aquinas’ 1st Way

P1. objects are in motion eg become hotter

P2. change = moving from potential > actual

P3. the change (p>a) can only be caused by something in actual state

P4. nothing can cause itself to exist

P5. the chain of motion cannot be infinite

C. must be a ‘first mover’ - God, the ‘unmoved mover’

Aquinas’ 2nd way

P1. if exists, has cause

P2. nothing can cause itself

P3. no infinite chain of causes

C. must be a first cause - God, the ‘uncaused causer’

Aquinas’ 3rd Way

P1. some things = contingent

P2. contingent = finite, come into and pass out of existence

P3. if everything con, possible nothing existed once

P4. if once nothing, then nothing noe, but false!

C. not everything is contingent, something necessary > God

Descartes’ cosmological argument (continuing existence, causation)

I can’t have caused my existence because I don’t have all perfections.

I am not uncaused, and don’t have power to continue existing. So, I depend on something to exist.

The cause of my existence must be a thinking thing and have the idea of God.

I am either caused by something that caused itself, or was caused by something else. Causes cannot be infinite so something must have caused itself.

God caused his own existence.

(My parents don’t keep me in existence, only God does.)

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

P1. any contingent fact about the world must have an explanation

P2. con. fact = there are con. things

P3. con. things must have explanation

P4. con. things cannot be explained by other con. things

P5. must be explained by something not con.

C. There is a necessary being.

ockam’s razor

the simplest solution is likely to be the right one

infinite regress

the process of reasoning from effect to cause never stops

actual infinite

the idea of infinites that exist in reality, rather than just conceptually

temporal causation

the universe cannot be eternal, and therefore requires a cause to bring it about

atemporal causation

even if the universe is eternal, and so was never caused in time, it still needs a cause to keep it in existence

principle of sufficient reason

the idea that contingent facts cannot be explained by reference to other contingent facts

contingent facts can only be explained by reference to a necessary fact/ being - one that is self-explaining

Hume’s objection to the causal relationship (matters of fact)

P1. if we see two things (X and Y) constantly connected then our mind is led by the observation of one (X) to expect the other (Y)

P2. the sense of expectation provides our idea of a necessary connection between X and Y

C. the idea of a necessary connection gives us our belief that X causes Y

Hume’s objection to the causal relationship (relation of ideas)

P1. if ‘every event has cause’ can be known a priori, then denying it would lead to a contradiction

P2. ‘not every event has a cause’ is not contradictory, as we can conceive of events that have no cause

C. ‘every event has a cause’ cannot be known a priori

the possibility of an infinite regress

mathematical possibility: Cantor created set theory to solve paradoxes, eg hotel w infinite rooms

scientific: new theories of infinity eg bing bang or multiverse

logical: an infinite series of causes has no first cause, so chain continues to exist

the fallacy of composition (Russell)

we know about causes within the universe but this does not entitle us to move to a cause of the universe as a whole

eg every human has a mother, but cannot say there is a mother for the whole human race

the impossibility of a necessary being

P1. a relations of ideas exists where its denial entails a contradiction

P2. nothing that can be distinctly conceived entails a contradiction. if conceive exists, then conceive not exist

C. no being’s non-existence is a contradiction

arguments from contingency to necessary being are false

Russell (impossibility of a necessary being)

P1. ‘necessary’ can apply to propositions, esp. analytic ones

P2. analytic p. = self-contradictory to deny

P3. not self-contradictory to say ‘God does not exist’

C. ‘God exists’ not analytic or necessary proposition

causal principle

the belief that every event has a cause

proposition

a statement or assertion