1.2 cosmological argument

Question 1

What kind of argument is the cosmological argument?

Answer 1

a posteriori

Question 2

What was Aquainas’ first way?

Answer 2

argument from motion =
P1) there are things that are in motion
P2) whatever is in motion must’ve been moved by something else
P3) there can’t be an infinite regress of movers
C = there must be an unmoved mover = God

Question 3

What is Aquinas’ second way?

Answer 3

argument from causation = effects have causes
P1) some things are caused
P2) anything thats caused has to be caused by something else
P3) there cant be an infinite regress of causes
C = there must be a first, uncaused causer = God

Question 4

What is Aquinas’ third way?

Answer 4

argument from contingency
P1) there are contingent beings(could have not existed)
P2) contingent things can cause other contingent things BUT there can’t ONLY be contingent things
P3) an infinite regress of contingency is impossible
C = there must be at least one necessary being (has always existed, always will and can’t not exist) = God

Question 5

Evaluation of Aquinas’ cosmological argument

Answer 5

• doesn’t seem to establish the existence of any particular God, could be multiple gods
• doesn’t prove the existence of a sentient God
• Why is God exempt from these rules but not other things?

Question 6

What is the Kalam argument?

Answer 6

• the idea can be traced back to al-Ghazālī, an 11th century Islamic philosopher
  P1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
  P2) The universe began ton exist
  P3) Therefore, the universe has a cause
  P4) If the universe has a cause of its existence it must be God
  C = therefore God exists
• if something is not its own reason for existing then it must have been caused by something else until we get back to a self-causing necessary being

Question 7

What is Gottfried Leibniz’ version of the argument?

Answer 7

the principle of sufficient reason = the only sufficient reason possible for the existence of the universe is God
Leibniz argues that there needs to be an explanation for the existence of the world
P1) everything that exists has an explanation of its existence
P2) if the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God
P3) the universe exists
C = the explanation of the universe = God

Question 8

What did William Lane Craig argue?

Answer 8

there is no scientific explanation that can provide a sufficient explanation for the cause of the universe therefore the cause is God.

Question 9

What are Hume’s criticisms of the cosmological argument?

Answer 9

the fallacy of composition = He questions why someone would need an explanation for the whole when you have explained the cause of them individually
infinite regress could be possible = if God’s non-existence is impossible why should we assume that it isn’t the case for matter
rejection of necessary existence = the idea of a necessary being is meaningless as he can say that a necessary being doesn’t exist without contradiction
cause and effect are NOT known a priori

Question 10

Immanuel Kant on the cosmological argument

Answer 10

rejects the idea of necessary existence; even if God was a necessary being, it wouldn’t mean he existed
- argues that it is logically incorrect to make a leap from our perceptions about the existence of the world to make a metaphysical claim about the cause of it

Question 11

Bertrand Russell on the cosmological argument

Answer 11

“If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.”
- argues that there is no such thing as a necessary being and the existence of God is not analytic(true by definition)

Question 12

Anthony Kenny on the cosmological argument

Answer 12

argues that it isn’t the case that everything relies on something else for its movement or change
- draws on Newton’s first law of motion - the universe could consist eternally of matter in motion