Cosmological arguments

What form do the premises of cosmological arguments take?

A posteriori.

What is the general logical form of cosmological arguments?

Deductive arguments.

What are the different ways to categories cosmological arguments?

They can be categorised into those based on causation and those based on contingency and categorised based on whether they are horizontal (trace causation back in time to a first temporal cause) or vertical (race causation or contingency, upwards, in generality to a first sustaining cause of necessary being needed to sustain the universe).

Which cosmological arguments area based on causation and what does this mean?

The Kalam argument, Aquinas first and second way and Descartes argument. They move from stating that everything has a cause to inferring that the universe therefore has a causes and concluding that this cause is God.

Which cosmological arguments are from contingency and what does this mean?

Aquinas third way, Leibniz principle of sufficient reason. 1) Everything in the universe is dependent upon something else, 2) the universe must itself depend on something else, 3) This is God (itself necessary).

Outline the Kalam argument.

P1) Everything with a beginning must have a cause.

P2) The universe had a beginning.

C3) Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

C4 (added by William Lane Craig)) Moreover, this cause of the universe must be a personal cause, as scientific explanations cannot provide a causal, or mechanical, account of a first cause. This personal cause is God.

Explain the Kalam argument.

P1 is a version of the casual principle, it rests upon the metaphysical intuition that everything has a cause (‘nothing can come from nothing’). P2 claims that the universe could not have existed for an infinte amount of time, Al-Ghazali attempts to show that the concept of infinte regress is not possible, one of the arguments that he puts forward to prove this is the mathematical paradox of movie planets. Craig makes the conclusion that the scientific explanations are unsuccessful as thins cause e.g the Big Bang itself needs explaining.

What is the mathematical paradox of moving planets that Al-Ghazali used?

It was assumed that Jupiter took 12 years to orbit Earth while Saturn took 30 years, Al-Ghazali argued that if past time is infinite both of the planets must have orbited the Earth the same number of times which he argued is impossible as Jupiter must have orbited more than twice as many times, he concluded that infinity is not a coherent concept.

What type of argument is the Kalam argument and how is it categoried?

A deductive argument or a syllogism. It is a horizontal argument.

Define temporal cause and sustain cause.

A temporal cause brings about its effect after it whereas a sustain cause brings about its effect continuously, and the effect depends on the continued existence and operation of the cause.

Outline Aquinas first way in full.

1) There are some things in motion or a state of change in the world.

2) Motion is the reduction of something potential to something actual.

3) A thing can only be reduced from potentiality to actuality by something already in that state of actuality.

4) A thing can’t be actually and potentially in the same state at the same time.

5) Therefore, nothing can move or change itself- it must be moved or changed by something else.

6) Imagine everything was moved or changed by something else- then there would be an infinite regress of movers.

7) Reductio ad absurdum: If 6 were true then there would be no prime mover and hence no subsequent movers.

8) Conclusion: There must be an unmoved prime mover (the source of all motion/change) whom we call God.

Give an example of something being reduced from potentially to actuality.

A cold radiator has the potentially to become hot, the cold radiator can only be reduced from potentiality to actuality (being hot) by something already in that state and so to become hot (move form potentiality to actuality) something hot must move it to that state.

Give the simplified outline of Aquinas first way.

P1) There are some things in a motion or a state of change.

P2) Nothing can move itself.

P3) Imagine everything was moved or changed by something else- then there would be an infine regress of movers.

P4) This is reduction ad absurdum: if 2 were true there would be no prime mover and hence no subsequent movers, but this is false.

C) There must be an unmoved prime mover (the source of all motion/change) whom we call God.

What does Reductio ad absurdum mean?

Is the form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario should lead to absurdity or contradiction.

Aquinas first way- change/motion. Things changing (passive recipients).

Aquinas second way- cause and effects. Things doing the changing (active agents).

Aquinas third way- contingency.

What metaphysical Aristotelian concept is used in his second way?

The concept of efficent causes.

What are the four different causes in Aquinas second way?

1) The material cause- the stuff out of which something comes to be.

2) The formal cause- the form (structure/Blueprint)

3) The efficient cause- the principle that brings about change.

4) The final cause- the end, goal or purpose.

Give the example of the causes in making a statue. Aquinas is interested in the efficient cause.

Outline Aquinas second way (argument from a temporal causation).

P1) There is an order of efficient causes.

P2) Nothing can be the efficient cause of itself (as it would have to be prior to itself, which is impossible)

P3) Imagine this order of efficient causes goes on infinitely- then there would be no first cause among efficient causes.

P4) Reductio ad absurdum: If point 3 were true then there would be no subsequent efficient causes, but this is false.

C) There must be a first efficient cause (the source of all efficient causes) and this we call God.

Categorise Aquinas second way.

A vertical chain of causes which uses causation to explain the existence of God.

What do cosmological arguments based on contingency argue?

They claim that everything in the universe contingent upon something else. However it is impossible for everything to be contingent, there must be a non-contingent necessary being upon which the contingent universe depends upon.

Outline Aquinas third way.

Part 1

P1) Things in the world are contingent (they come into existence and pass out of existence).

P2) Imagine everything was continent contingent, then there was once a time when everything had passed out of existence- that is there was nothing.

P3) Reductio ad absurdum: If P2 were true then there would be nothing now (as nothing can come from nothing), but this is false.

C) Therefore, not everything can be contingent- there must be at least one thing that is necessary.

Part 2

P5) Everything that is necessary either has the cause of its necessity in itself, or outside of itself.

P6) Imagine every necessary thing has the cause of its necessity outside of itself.

P7) Reductio ad absurdum: If point 6 were true then there would be no ultimate cause of necessity.

C) There must be a necessary being which causes and sustains all other necessary and contingent beings- this being we call God.

What’s a short outline of Aquinas third way?

P1) Things in the world are contingent.

P2) If everything was contingent then there was one a time when everything has passed out of of existence.

P3) If there was once nothing, then there would be nothing now, but this is false.

C1) Therefore not everything is contingent- there is one thing that is necessary.

C2) This necessary being is God.

Outline Descartes cosmological argument based on his continuing existence.

P1) The existence of the idea of God in my mind needs explaining; the continuing existence of me as a conscious being also needs explaining.

P2) I cannot be the cause of my idea of God (a perfect being) because I am not God (a perfect being). I cannot bring about my continuing existence as a conscious being because I do not have the power.

P3) Therefore, the cause of me as a conscious being, and the cause of my idea of God, must lie outside of myself.

P4) Either a) this external cause is itself caused by something else, or b) it is itself own cause.

P5) If a) is true, then either c) this other cause must be caused by a further thing, or b) it is itself own cause own cause.

P6) This sequence of causes cannot run back to infinity, and eventually we will reach an ultimate cause- b).

P7) The ultimate cause; that is, the him that is its own cause, is God.

P8) Therefore, it is God who ultimately causes my idea of God, and it is God who ultimately sustains my existence as a conscious being.

C) Therefore, God exists.

What principle does Descartes make use of in his cosmological argumetn?

The casual principle- that everything must have a cause, and the cause must be sufficiently powerful to create the effect. The cause of the idea of a perfect being must be a perfect being, Descartes concluded that he is not a perfect being and therefore the cause must be God. Descartes also rejected the idea that he is the cause of his own continually existence as he argued that if he has such a power, he would be aware of having it, and he is not.