3. Arguments based on observation - cosmological

Question 1

Cosmological arguements…

Answer 1

attempt to justify the conclusion that God exists as the required explanation of the existence of the universe - a posteriori

Question 2

Aquinas

His 1st way

Answer 2

(motion)
P1 observe things in motion
P2 motion is the actualisation of a thing’s potential to be in motion.
P3 motion is only caused by the thing being moved.
P4 a mover must be something actual
P5 a thing cannot move itself.
C1 all things in motion must have been moved by a mover.
C2 must be a first mover.

Question 3

Aquinas

2nd way

Answer 3

(atemporal causation)
P1 observe efficent causation.
P2 nothing can cause itself
P3 there’s logical order to sustaining causes.
P4 cause and effect chain cannot go on forever.
C1 must be a first cause, otherwise P1 would be false.
C2 cannot be an infinite regress of causes.
C3 first cause must be uncaused = God.

Question 4

Aquinas

3rd way

Answer 4

(necessacity and contingency)
P1 everything within nature hasn’t always existed.
P2 every object dependent on prior contingent finite being.
P3 cannot be infinate
P4 must be a being who isn’t contingent on anything for existance.
P5 must lie beyond the universe.
C1 being = God, uncaused and unique.

Question 5

Aquinas

Criticism of 1+2nd way

Answer 5

There is the possibilty of infinate regress.
Betrand Russell = universe is ‘brute fact’, inductive leap, contradiction of everything in motion must posses a prior cause then argues for uniqueness of God.
Plurality of causes - may be many causes or imperfect cause.

Question 6

Aquinas

Criticism of 3rd way

Answer 6

Notion of necessary being logically impossible from our experience.
Hume = ‘necessary existance = incoherant concept; depends upon belief over demonstration.’

Question 7

Gottfried Leibniz

About him

Answer 7

• German philosopher + mathmatician.
• Accepted cosmological because believed there had to be sufficent reason for universe to exist.

Question 8

Gottfried Leibniz

Book and quote 2x

Answer 8

• 1710 = theodicy book
• “It is evident that even though a reason can be given for the present book out of a past one, we should have never come to a full reason.”
• “If you suppose the world eternal, you will suppose nothing but a sucsession of states, and not find any of them a sufficient reason.”

Question 9

Gottfried Leibniz

Ideas

Answer 9

• Rejected infinity = didn’t believe a satifactory answer for existance, argued if universe was eternal it would make no difference as we would still need a reason.
• Principle of sufficent reason - he avoided looking at single instances such as objects in motion, instead focused on explaination for whole cosmos = God.
• Imortance of thought, universe = harmonious whole, essentially good, God created best of all possible worlds.

Question 10

Gottfried Leibniz

Critisicm - Voltair

Answer 10

1694-1768
Where hero exists everything that happenede to him is “all for the best, in the best possible worlds.”

Question 11

Kalam

About him

Answer 11

• Roots in Islamic philosophy

Question 12

Kalam

Argument

Answer 12

1. everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. universe bagan to exist.
3. therefore universe has a cause
   objects possibilty of infinate regress, question whether causation applies to universe as a whole
   Supported by science - big bang thing shows cause.

Question 13

Kalam

Critics

Answer 13

Relies on narrow understanding of causation + evidence of God only possible reason for beginning of universe.

Question 14

Criticism

Swineburne

Answer 14

(1934-present)
* Argues real need to explaination lies in fact that that theres more likely nothing than something.
* Occom’s razor = simplist explaination most likely.
* “it is extraordinary that there should exist anything at all, surely most natural state of affairs is simply nothing: no universe, no God. Nothing.”

Question 15

Criticism

Hume

Answer 15

• Argued against first cause = fallacy of composition.
• We have no experience of universes being made.
• To think about being beyond universe = minds can’t cpmprehend, mentally impossible.
• We impose causality on everything.
• Can’t look at effects and confidently infer God. unless maybe stupid God or committee of Gods.

Question 16

Evaluation

Ludwig Wittenstein

Answer 16

1889-1951
“the world is all and that is the case.” - world = everything that we know + speak about, yet religion tries to get ‘outside’ the world + find a cause that’s beyond what we can know through senses.

Question 17

Evaluation

Bertrand Russell

Answer 17

(1877-1970)
Fallacy of composition + universe = “brute fact.”
Also while scientists search for a cause, they don’t assume there’s one to find.
So, a contingent series doesn’t need an external cause.
The principle of sufficient reason cannot be a necessary truth.

Question 18

Evaluation

Richard Dawkins

Answer 18

Born 1941
Aethiest and scientist.
Objects mythological explainations when it seems science doesn’t have full answers.
“Intelletually degrading non-explaination that fustrates the possibility of finding out the real truth.”

Question 19

Evaluation

Hume’s fork

Answer 19

• A priori reasoning = the relations between ideas, i.e. analytic knowledge (true by definition)
• A posteriori reasoning = matters of fact, i.e. synthetic knowledge (true by the way the world is).
• “there is an evident absurdity in pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact, or to prove it by any arguments a priori” – Hume
• We cannot know that a being’s existence is logically necessary, since a being’s existence cannot be established through logic.

Question 20

Evaluation

Masked man fallacy

Answer 20

• challenges the idea that conceivability always equals possibility.
• relies on the idea that if we can conceive of something, it’s possible. However, the fallacy demonstrates that we can conceive of impossible scenarios.
• Hume’s assertion that conceiving of God’s non-existence means it’s possible for God not to exist assumes that conceivability always aligns with possibility, which might not be the case since God is considered necessary, making His non-existence impossible.

Question 21

Evaluation

Aquinas and infinite regress

Answer 21

argues an infinite regress is impossible. If there was an infinite regress, there would be an infinite amount of time before the present moment. That means to get to the present moment, an infinite amount of time must have passed. However, an infinite amount of time cannot pass.

Question 22

Evaluation

Modern science rejection

Answer 22

• Steady state theory = the universe always existed, clashed with the big bang theory, implying a beginning.
• Big bang theory allows room for a creator God as it posits a potential method of creation, differing from steady state’s eternal existence.
• Pope Pius XII affirmed in 1951 that the big bang theory aligns with the Catholic view of creation.
• Scientifically, the question arises whether the big bang can be explained without invoking God; one theory proposes an oscillating universe with cycles of big bangs and crunches perpetually.