cosmological argument ao1+ao2

what is the cosmological argument

• an argument for the existence of God starting with the observations from the observations of the universe

Elizabeth Anscombe support for CA

• ‘if the world was an object, it seems natural to ask causal questions

• e.g - who/what/when/why

what are aquinas’ three ways

• his arguments that support the existence of God through the existance of the universe, which created the cosmological argument

• draws from aristolean philosophies

aquinas’ first way

• MOTION

• everything in the world is moviing and it needs something extenal to itself to move

• this cannot be be an infinte regress as there must be a first thing which has caused this motion

• so their must be a first unmoved mover, that is outside of time as it cannot change and is perfect

• this is God

aquinas’ second way

• CAUSATION

• everything in the universe is based on cause and effect

• there is an order of effiecent causes

• there cannot be an infitine regress as their would be no first cause which cataylises the chain of cause and effect

• so there must be a first uncaused causer

• this is God

aquinas’ third way

• CONTIGANCY

• the universe is contingent → it either exists or doesnt exist

• this means that there was nothing at one point

• something cannot come from nothing (so there cannot be an infinte regress)

• so there must be a being which is nessicary and thus not contigent who created the universe

• this is God

leibniz support

• principle of suffiencent reason → any contingent fact about the universe must have an explanation as to why is that way

• ‘there must be something rather than nothing’

• supports way 2+3

• example of geomotray books → each book is copied from oneanother, you can never find out fully why it came into existance this is the same as the universe

F Copelstone support

• everything in the universe is contigent, relying on an external cause

• universe is made up of all contingent things

• the universe itself is contingent and it depends on something external to itself - must be a self explantory nessicary being

• this gives a full and suffiecent reason for the existance of the universe

• supports way 3 for contingancy

B russel counter

• the universe requires no explanation → ‘the universe is just there and it has no explanation’

• every man on earth has a mother and through aquinas’ reasoning it would dictate that the entire human race has a mother which isnt true

• thus fallacy of compstion has been made (making connections between two things that don’t exist) you and other things in the universe may have a cause but this doesnt suggest that the universe itself has a cause

• critque of way 3 → there cannot be a nesscairy being who is God who created the contigancy as te universe simply eixsted

kant counter

• causealitly is just the way our minds work and like to see the world - the phenominal world, the world we see and expereicne

• if we implore cause and effect into the world the numinol world cannot be expeirenced by the senses

• critque of way 2 → since there is no causealitly way 2 doesnt thus make sense.

• a false translation and no connection can be made

JL Mackie counter

• aquinas cannot go back to infinity as there is no starting point

• it is logical to suggest that there is no start or end because of the definition of infinity

• we only asume a starting point as we want to see causation in the world, when actually there is no starting point just an infinte regression

deductive arguments

• only uses reason

• the premisies lead to a logical and creation of a conculsion

• conculsion found in the presmises

inductive arguments

• uses obervation and experiecne to suggest a probable conculsion

• e.g - sun is shinning, the sun shines in july, it must be july

• all args for the existance of God are inductive - we cannot justify trusting an assumption

humes critques : inductive reasoning

• universalised assumption that everything has a cause and effect

• although we collect data through obervations to make a propbable conculsion this isnt always correct

• through habit we link cause and effect together

• the creation of the universe is beyond our knowledge; so we cannot make a leap in judgement to suggest that God created it

• critques way 2

• anscome counter → humans always ask why and what so their is validity

humes critques : Fallacy of compestion

• whats true for parts of the world isnt true about the univers itself

• assumption that just because everything in the universe has a cause it means that the universe itself has a cause

• crtitques way 2

• hughs → unphilosophical to suggest there is no explanation to the universe

humes critques :special assumption

• God may be the first cause of the universe but everything then needs a first cause so what is te cause of God

• if God can be its own cause then why cant the universe be its own cause also - it simply doesnt need an explanation

• way 2

• swinburne → God is the ultimate explanation for the brute fact for the existance of the universe

humes critques : infinte regress

• it is possible to suggest that a chain of causes has no beginning it is infinte

• although things within the universe are based on cause and effect this doesnt mean that there is a first uncaused casuer

• ways 1+2

• counter → infinte regress plausablitly cannot be proved right or wrong as it goes beyond observation

humes critques : type of God assumption

• the cause of the universe may not come from the christian classical thesit God (leap in logic)

• may be a desitic God

• ways 1,2+3

humes critques : cause and effect

• how do we know that the sun will rise tomorrow - we cannot know for sure but we can gather evidence, but this doesnt 100% mean that the sun will rise tomorrow

• although we may observe cause and effect in some parts of nature it doenst mean that we can extend this to the uncaused causer God becuase this is out of our actucal experience

• cause and effect are simply correltation

humes critques : example of twenty particles

• the fallacy of compesion can be explained through this example

• can we explain the reasons for the existance of twenty partucles but we dont need to ask the question what is the cause for the whole

mackie’s support of hume

• infinte regress is possbile

• there are infinte hooks each linked to an infinte chain

john wisdoms parable of the garden

• garders in the jungle

• one sees order so suggests there was a garder there

• the other sees disorder and suggests that there was no order

• thus it is all about perception

logical fallacy

• an error in reasoning that rendeers an argument invalid

• 1 - asummptions

• 2 - jump in logic

• 3- jump in an argument for a special case

• 4- an alternative explanation