1.2 Cosmological Argument

Aristotle beliefs

everything is in a state of flux and requires a mover to begin this chain of events. There cannot have been a first change because that would require something to set it off which is another change. Change is eternal.

Prime mover

the primary source of all movement which he believes is God.

Necessary existence

God does not depend on anything else and is an unchanging eternal being.

Aristotle's 4 causes

Material - what it's made of

Formal - structure

Efficient - how was it made

Final - what's its purpose

what type of argument is Aristotle's?

inductive

What is the causes of the universe?

first 3 are explained by science ei big bang. Final cause cannot be explained by science and is God.

Big Bang

The efficient cause of the universe. 14 billion years ago the universe expanded from a single point. There is no complete explanation for it so the Prime Mover is responsible for it.

What are the strengths and weaknesses? - Aristotle

- makes an leap assuming God is the cause.

- everything is the universe does have the 4 causes

- relies on empirical evidence

-addresses infinite regress

Kalam argument background

proposed by 12th century muslim philosopher al-Ghazali. He critiques greek philosophy.

Kalam argument

The universe must have a beginning and there must be a transcendent creator that put it into being. Nothing exists without a cause.

P1 Whatever begins to exist has a cause

P2 the universe began to exist

C the cause of the universe is God

al-Ghazali quote

"Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning."

what type of argument is Kalam?

a priori and deductive. Must accept the premises are true therefore the conclusion must be true

William Lane Craig - Kalam

the cause of the universe must be personal - outside of nature. A supernatural cause. The laws of nature cannot have created themselves. Creation was done ex nihilo.

What are the strengths and weaknesses? - Kalam

- avoids infinite regress by saying the universe BEGAN

- compatible with science - big bang

-doesn't answer what came before stuff began

-another leap

Aquinas' 3 ways

motion, efficient cause, necessity and contingency

Aquinas' first way

P1 everything in the world is changing and moving

P2 nothing can move or change itself (necessarily)

P3 there cannot be infinite regress

C1 there must be a first mover

C2 The prime mover is GOD

potentiality

Aquinas is concerned with changes of state. Everything in the world has the potential to change. This creates infinite regress which is impossible.

Aquinas' second way

P1 everything in the world has a cause.

P2 nothing causes itself

P3 there cannot be infinite regress

C1 there has to be a first casue

C2 the first cause is GOD

Uncaused cause

we have no experience of anything that causes itself. Without a cause, there would be no effect. God is uncaused because every other solution is impossible

Why is the uncaused cause problematic?

It's self contradictory. The premise is that everything has a cause but that God does not have a cause.

Aquinas' third way

P1 everything is contingent

P2 if things exist there was a time they didn't

C1 there was a time nothing existed

P3 things exist now

C2 there must be something that everything depends upon but is itself necessary

C3 the necessary being is God

What are the strengths and weaknesses of Aquinas' ways?

-doesn't have to apply to only a christian God

-works with scientific theories like big bang.

-it's easier to argue for God then to justify infinite regress

- can be backed up by empirical evidence

-the universe could be infinite - endless causes

- the existence of God contradicts cause and effect. what was God doing before creation?

- inductive arguments aren't based on proof

Leibniz quote

nothing takes place without a sufficient reason

Principle of Sufficient reason

The principle that everything must have a reason to explain it. He is against 'brute facts' that are just accepted without reason.

What is the difference between proximate and sufficient reason?

Proximate - an incomplete explanation which involves the immediate cause

Sufficient reason -complete explanation

Leibniz's key ideas

P1 any contingent fact needs an explanation

P2 contingent things cant be explained by other contingent things.

P3 there are contingent things

C1 contingent things should be explained by something necessary

C2 the necessary being is God

why is God the sufficient reason?

he is the only complete explanation of the universe. No other argument would be more sufficient, not even science.

What example is used?

an 'eternal' geometry text book. If you questioned where it came from you could say it was made from another text book (proximate answer) to understand why it exists you must know why all geometry books exist.

Leibniz quote - text book

if you suppose the world eternal, you will suppose nothing but a succession of states and will not find in any of them a sufficient reason?

Strengths and weaknesses of PSR

- goes to the heart of understanding contingency: why is there something rather than nothing

- side steps the debate of infinite regress (an eternal world needs a sufficient reason) and raises the debate above science.

- deductive argument so we must accept the premise is true therefore the conclusion must be true.

-by detaching from science it becomes a weaker argument

- hume's arguments that we see things or form habits of the mind

Hume's criticism on necessity

Cleanthes- we can imagine the non-existence of anything

- weak because he uses the ontological sense of the word necessity (God can't be imagined as not existing)

Hume's criticism on cause and effect

Philo - the necessary being doesn't have to be God. The universe could be the necessary being. We have experience of houses being created, not universes. We don't know how universes are made or if they can make themselves.

The idea that everything needs a cause is 'spurious' (doubtful)

Causation is a 'habit of the mind' - we see things happen and assume there is a connect

Hume's criticism - explaining parts

Cleanthes - no need to explain the whole universe if we can explain each individual part.

Empiricism

we can only discover things through the senses

'never to look beyond the present material world' - Hume

Two types of realities (Kant)

Phenomenon - the reality we experience through our senses (what humans experience)

Noumenon - the reality as it actually is (God)

Humans have no experience of the noumenon

3 types of necessity (Kant)

Logical- contradictory to imagine the opposite

Metaphysical - true in any possible world

Factual: can't stop or start existing -eternal

Kant's necessity - application to God

God isn't metaphysically necessary because if he's not logically necessary, he might not exist in all worlds.

He can't be factually necessary, if he isn't logically necessary then he might not exist and can't come into existence later.

Logically necessary- answered by Hume. You can imagine a world without God.

Kant concludes the cosmological debate is irrelevant