The Cosmological argument

The First Way:  The argument from motion

 

P1: Some things in the world are in motion - from potential to actual  

P2:  Whatever is in motion is moved by something else – a thing needs to be acted on by something else which is already 'actual' in the relevant way. This is called 'actualising'  

P3: This cannot regress infinitely – A actualises B, which actualises C, which actualises D etc  

 

Therefore, there must be an Unmoved Mover (Unactualized Actualizer) 

The Second Way: The argument from cause

“There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself: for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible…” - Aquinas

P1: Every event has a cause

P2: Nothing can be efficient cause of itself

P3: If we imagine this order of causes goes back infinitely then there would be no first cause

P4: If this were true then there would be no causes at all, but this is false. (Reductio ad absurdum)

Conclusion: Therefore, there must be a first cause - God

Challenges:

Hume - causation isn’t observed, we infer it

We can only know that the universe has a cause if we observe its creation.

Hume - the ‘fallacy of composition’

Parts of the universe we experience have a cause, mover or continegnt status. That doesn’t mean the whole universe has such an explanation

“Every man who exists has a mother…”

Russell - the universe is just a brute fact

Quantum physics suggests events without prior causes

The Third Way: The argument from contingency and necessity

The Kalam cosmological argument:

Originated with Muslim scholar Al-Ghazali

The argument:

P1: Everything that began to exist has a cause

P2: The universe began to exist

Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause

Entropy - Tendency of physical systems to move from order to disorder over time. It is irreversible.

A theory of time

  • Only the present exists

  • The past no longer exists

  • The future does not yet exist

  • Time really flows/passes

B theory of time

  • Past, present and future are all equally real

  • Time does NOT really flow or pass

  • The universe is like a block/for dimensional time structure

William Lane Craig:

P1: Everything either a beginning must have a cause

P2: The universe has a beginning

C1: Therefore the universe must have a cause

C1: Moreover, this cause of the universe must be a a personal cause, as scientific explanations cannot provide a causal account of a first cause. This personal cause is God.  

God of deism - God made the universe and is no longer present

“It can be plausibly argued that the creator of the universe must be a personal creator”

The rejection of actual infinities:

  • Potential infinites (cutting line in half infinitely) can be used e.g. in maths but actual infinites (The full hotel with an infinite number of rooms) are impossible and will always lead to impossible situations (paradoxes)

  • Hotel example - the hotel is both full and has space for a thousand/million/infinite number of people - paradox

David Hume against the cosmological arguments:

  1. The fallacy of composition - just because we observe cause and effect IN the universe, does not mean that this rule applies to the universe itself. - doesn’t mean there has to be one cause for the universe itself.

  2. While we can talk about things that we have experience of with some certainty, we have no experience of creating a universe and therefore cannot talk meaningfully about that.

  3. Inductive proofs rely on the strength of their evidence to make the conclusion more probable. There is not enough evidence to say whether the universe had a cause, and definitely not enough to conclude what the cause might have been.

  4. Even if ‘God’ could be accepted as the cause of the universe, there is no way to determine what sort of God this would be and certainly no way of determining whether it was the God of classical theism.

  • Challenges to the cosmological arguments:  

     

    • Still does not prove the existence of a loving, omniscient etc God – so far removed from the God that theists believe in that it isn't helpful  

    • It is an deductive argument – not based on empirical evidence therefore is weak  

    • If God is exempt from Aquinas' rules, then why couldn't other things be as well – doesn't explain why these rules don't apply to God 

    • Doesn't account for the fact that something could have caused God  

    • The fallacy of composition – wrongfully assumes that the universe has the same properties as the individual parts – Just because every part of the universe has a cause or is contingent, doesn't mean the universe as a whole has a cause or is contingent  

    • Necessary beings are impossible – it is impossible for beings to exist necessarily  

    • In quantum physics, particles randomly appear without cause

    • “There cannot be an infinite regress” - maybe its possible we just don’t understand it yet.

    • Maybe there is an infinite chain of big bangs + big crunches so no need for a 1st mover