'AQUINAS' COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT IS TOO AMBIGUOUS TO BE SUCCESSFUL.' DISCUSS

INTRO

Aquinas first 3 of his 5 ways covers the cosmological argument - argument that God can be shown through empirical evidence and reason - posteriori proofs makes it an inductive argument.

ARGUMENT OF MOTION

Arstotellian principle of motus (change of state) potentiality → actuality ie. youth to old age, cold things becoming warm. Nothing can move/change by itself - cannot be an infinite regress of movers. Unmoved mover is God. A ball cannot move unless I throw it. Seems illogical to overcomplicate divine entities Ockham's razor: "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity."

STRENGTH OF MOTION

We can observe change/motion within the universe - if there was no first domino to push the others, the chain reaction would never start. The first domino, in this analogy, represents the "unmoved mover," initiating the motion of the chain reaction without being moved by anything else. SERIES OF MOVERS: CANNOT GO BACK TO INFINITY

COUNTER-ARGUE POSITIVE OF MOTION

Argues that there can be an infinite regression of movers/changers that start the chain of movement - ie. infinite hooks.

NEGATIVE OF MOTION

Empirical evidence arguments, inductive arguments untrustworthy → will the sun rise tomorrow eg. Logical fallacy to observe one part of the universe and apply it universally.

FIRST CAUSE

Aquinas explains that everything within the universe is as a result of a succession of causes. Nothing can be it’s own cause, (logical impossibility) - First uncaused causer is God
“when Aquinas talks about an “order” of efficient causes he is not thinking of a series stretching back into the past, but of a hierarchy of causes, in which a subordinate member is here and now dependent on the causal activity of a higher member.” – Copleston
Ex nihilo nihil fit - absurd.

NEGATIVE OF CAUSATION

Kant argues that causation is just the way our minds like to see the phenomenal world - we impose causation, noumenal world it is non-existent

STRENGTH OF CAUSATION

We can observe cause/effect within the world ie. if a door swings forward and a cat walks in (effect), I will look to see why it opened (cause)
Anscome - humans always question - especially on God ie. magician who pulls out the rabbit - focus on not only how the universe exists, but why

FINAL NEGATIVE OF CAUSATION

Hume points out that Aquinas makes a special case assumption - why can’t te universe be its own cause?
COUNTERARGUE: God is not bound by universal laws

NECESSITY/CONTINGENCY

Everything in the universe is contingent, it can or cannot not exist. If things sometimes do not exist, it is possible that there was a time when nothing existed - but there is something now, so how? A necessary being brought things into experience

NECESSITY/CONTINGENCY STRENGTH

Examples can be observed, without parents you wouldn’t exist. Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason - book series, why was there a first book in the first place? We come from parents

NECESSITY/CONTINGENCY WEAKNESS

Russel claims the universe is a brute fact
However, Edward Feser points out that Aquinas is only making a claim about the beings we experience, not the whole universe.

CONCLUSION

This view is most justifiable as it uses logic - there must be a first cause
We have not experienced or have knowledge of any other creator therefore it makes the most sense to use God as the reason for the universe
Although we know it cannot be proven, many would argue that it's comforting to think of God as the creator and gives purpose to life
John Wisdom’s Parable - it can be taken either way. But it provides no productive information as a its an inductive argument - thus too ambiguous and only limited to fallible, human reasoning