3. Arguments based on observation - cosmological Flashcards
Cosmological arguements…
attempt to justify the conclusion that God exists as the required explanation of the existence of the universe - a posteriori
Aquinas
His 1st way
(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.
Aquinas
2nd way
(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.
Aquinas
3rd way
(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.
Aquinas
Criticism of 1+2nd way
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.
Aquinas
Criticism of 3rd way
Notion of necessary being logically impossible from our experience.
Hume = ‘necessary existance = incoherant concept; depends upon belief over demonstration.’
Gottfried Leibniz
About him
- German philosopher + mathmatician.
- Accepted cosmological because believed there had to be sufficent reason for universe to exist.
Gottfried Leibniz
Book and quote 2x
- 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.”
Gottfried Leibniz
Ideas
- 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.
Gottfried Leibniz
Critisicm - Voltair
1694-1768
Where hero exists everything that happenede to him is “all for the best, in the best possible worlds.”
Kalam
About him
- Roots in Islamic philosophy
Kalam
Argument
- everything that begins to exist has a cause.
- universe bagan to exist.
- 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.
Kalam
Critics
Relies on narrow understanding of causation + evidence of God only possible reason for beginning of universe.
Criticism
Swineburne
(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.”
Criticism
Hume
- 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.
Evaluation
Ludwig Wittenstein
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.
Evaluation
Bertrand Russell
(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.
Evaluation
Richard Dawkins
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.”
Evaluation
Hume’s fork
- 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.
Evaluation
Masked man fallacy
- 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.
Evaluation
Aquinas and infinite regress
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.
Evaluation
Modern science rejection
- 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.
