1A: Inductive Arguments - Cosmological Flashcards
What is an inductive argument?
- an argument where the premise (s) provide strong reason to support the given conclusion.
What is an a-posteriori argument?
- based on human observation or experience (empirical evidence or evidence from the five senses
Background to cosmological arguments?
- aim to show that God 100% exists - he definitely exists
- all effects have a cause - CA works on the belief that every cause must also have a cause. However CA states that this cannot go back an infinite amount of times and therefore there must be a first cause. Cosmologists believe this to be God.
What are the two types of Cosmological arguments?
- older version: Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
- more modern version: William Lane Craig - Kalam argument (1949-present)
About Aquinas’ CA:
- from big book ‘Summa Theologica’
- his CA are influenced by Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, as well as Jewish thinker Maimonides and influential thinker Avicenna
- Aquinas split his argument in three different ways - this was to reflect the slightly different arguments of his influences.
What are Aquinas three ways - CA?
- way one: unmoved mover
- way two: uncashed causer
- way three: contingent snd necessity
What was Aquinas’ first way - unmoved mover?
- Aquinas observed that things are in motion.
- however Aquinas reasoned that things have the potential to change state. For this change to happen there must have been changed by something else. (This is known as the efficient cause)
- “Whatever is in motion must be put into motion by another”
- however Aquinas also argues that the efficient cause must too have actualised due to another efficient cause.
- however this cannot go back an infinite number of times (infinite regress). Therefore there must be a first changer.
- Aquinas believes that as everything in the world is in motion we have to look outside the universe or the ‘first changer’. Moreover the ‘first changer’ cannot be changed by anything else
- therefore for Aquinas, this can only be ago. Therefore God must exist.
- Aristotle called this the ‘Prime Mover’
What was Aquinas’ second way - uncaused causer?
-often seen as the classic CA
- Aquinas (from observation) argued that it is a universal law that every effect has a cause. Aquinas called this the ‘immediate cause’
- Aquinas believed this to be a universal law as it is logically impossible to for anything to cause itself. This is because it would mean things would already have to exist.
- every immediate cause must also have an immediate cause, however cannot logically go back infinitely. If there was no first cause nothing would exist now. “Out of nothing comes nothing”
- therefore there must be a first causer that itself is uncaused. According to Aquinas the first cause is God, therefore God exists.
What was Aquinas’ third way - contingency and necessity?
- Aquinas observed that the world consist of contingent beings, i.e. you were once created and will eventually cease to exist. (E.g. humanity)
- as a contingent being you exist now however there was a time in the last before you existed
- if everything in the universe is a contingent being then it was a logical necessity that there was a time when no contingent beings existed. (This is called the ‘Principle of Plenitude’ - if something is a real possibility, given an infinite amount time it will happen)
- if there was a time when no contingent beings existed, then no contingent beings would exist today. This is because they cannot come from nothing
- however contingent beings do exists and therefore there must be a necessary being capable of bringing contingent beings into existence. Aquinas refers to this Necessary Being as God, therefore God exists.
Background to the Kalam argument?
- created by William Lane Craig and is more modern.
- named after a group of Muslim philosophers from the 9th century.
- argued that everything has a cause, therefore the universe must too have a cause. Moreover the cause of the universe must be outside of the universe itself. Therefore the cause must be God.
What was the Kalam argument?
1) Everything that begins to exist must have a cause for its existence
2) the universe began to exist
3) therefore, the universe must have a cause of existence
4) since no scientific explanation can provide an account if the cause of the universe, the cause must be a personal creator, which is God - therefore God exists.
Craig’s defence of point 2:
- Craig recognised that point 2 is controversial, e.g. it can be argued that the universe might be infinite and therefore doesn’t need a cause
- Craig argues an actual infinity cannot exists because they are absurd. He uses the analogy of a library to demonstrate this.
- he asks us to imagine a library with an infinite amount if books. Moreover the library has an actual infinite amount of black books and an actual infinite number of red books.
- problem with this is there are as many red books as there are in the total. Therefore how can there be the same amount of red books as the total when we also have a set of black books.
- Craig argues that this illustrates actual infinities cannot exist in reality because the concept is absurd.
Analogy for Aquinas’ 2nd way:
- series of dominoes falling down, one after another
- each domino cannot fall of its own accord, it needs another domino to fall on it ‘immediate cause’
- however this series of falling dominos could not have started on its own, it needed someone to push the first domino (ultimate cause).
