cosmological argument

what is the cosmological argument?

an a posterior argument where the universe must have a cause for its existence, which is God

who argued for the cosmological argument?

aquinas

what was aquinas’ theory?

the five ways - summa theologica

what is way one?

the argument from motion
things in motion must be moved by something else and this cannot go on forever (no infinite regress), so there must be a first mover and this is God
e.g. the staff and hand - without the hand, the staff cannot move the rock (per se causation)
intermediate causes have no independent power, therefore an unmoved mover must exist to sustain motion

what is the second way?

the argument from causation
there is an order of causes and this cannot go back forever, so there must be an first efficient uncaused cause and this is God

what is the third way?

the argument from necessity
some things are contingent but we cannot have an infinite regress of contingent things as at some point, there would be nothing
nothing comes from nothing (ex nihilo nihil fit) so there must be at least one necessary being and this is God

who critiques the cosmological argument?

hume - dialogues concerning natural religion

how does hume critique the cosmological argument?

critique of causal principle (first and second way)
fallacy of composition (third way)
the impossibility of a necessary being (third way)

what is hume’s critique of the causal principle?

it is not analytically true that every event has a cause
an uncaused event is not a logical contradiction (something that cannot possibly be true by contradiction)
even if every event in the universe has a cause, it does not mean that the universe itself has a cause
we have never observed the universe being created, so the causal principle lacks empirical evidence

what is swinburne’s response to hume’s criticism of the causal principle?

the causal principle does not need to be analytically true
it can be synthetic a posteriori, true based on experience as every event we have seen has a cause, so the causal principle is an empirical generalisation
we often infer causes for things we have never directly observed (e.g. dinosaurs), so the simplest explanation of the cause of the universe is God

how does hume critique using the fallacy of composition?

you cannot assume that because every part of the universe has a cause, the universe as a whole must also have a cause
20 particles - each particle has a cause or explanation, but the whole group of particles doesn’t need a separate cause — it’s just the sum of its parts
assuming it does is the fallacy of composition

what is aquinas’ argument in defense of the second way against hume’s criticism of the fallacy of composition?

hume’s 20 particles only works against a temporal series (events that happen independently of each other) not a sustaining series (causes depend on each other continuously)
an infinite sustaining series of secondary causes needs a primary cause to explain secondary causes

why does hume’s crticism of the fallacy of composition not necessarily work against aquinas’ argument?

aquinas is only explaining a reason for the first cause, not the universe as a whole
he isn’t commiting to the fallacy of composition as he argues that dependent causes just require a starting cause

how does hume critique using the impossibility of a necessary being?

a necessary being is inconceivable because anything we can imagine existing, we can also imagine not existing, so we cannot conceive a being whose non-existence is impossible
“there is no being whose existence is demonstrable”

what is a counter against hume’s critique using the impossibility of a necessary being?

cosmological arguments don’t claim God exists by definition (logical necessity)
they argue that a necessary being is metaphysically necessary: it must exist to explain the contingent world

what is russel’s brute fact?

the universe itself could be uncaused — a brute fact: it just exists, with no explanation
in quantum mechanics, some events can happen without a cause

what is a counter against russel’s brute fact?

we cannot rule out an ultimate explanation for the universe
quantum randomness shows limits in our knowledge, but doesn’t prove there is no explanation
even uncaused quantum events still rely on a physical system; we cannot assume the universe is a quantum event