3.3.2 Arguments relating to the existence of God: 5 markers Flashcards
Outline the Kalam argument
The Kalam cosmological argument is an argument from temporal causation.
To put it formally:
P1: Things that begin to exist, have a cause of their existence (The Causal Principle)
P2: Actual infinities cannot exist (because this produces logical contradictions)
P3: The universe cannot be infinite, so it must have a beginning
P4: If something is caused, it is either because it occurs naturally or is willed into existence by something distinct from the universe.
C1: Therefore, there must be a God that will the universe into existence
Outline Aquinas’ first way from motion
P1: There are some things in motion in the sense of moving from a state of potential to actual.
P2: Nothing can move by itself but needs something else to actualise its potential.
P3: If we imagine everything was moved by something else there would be an infinite regress of movers.
P4: There cannot be an infinite regress as there would be nothing to start the chain and hence no motion.
C1: Therefore, there must be an unmoved prime mover (something purely actual, without unrealised potential), which is God.
Outline Aquinas’ third way from contingency
Aquinas’ ‘Third way’ is a cosmological argument from contingency.
To put it formally:
P1: Things in the universe exist contingently i.e. depend on something else to exist
P2: If everything exists contingently, then it is possible that at sometime, there was nothing in existence
P3: If at sometime nothing existed, nothing would exist now as nothing comes from nothing
P4: Things do exist
C1: Therefore, there is something that does not exist contingently, but must exist - this necessary being is God
Outline Descartes’ cosmological argument
P1: The cause of my existence as a thinking thing with a perfect idea of God could be a) myself, b) I have always existed, c) my parents (or a being less than God) or d) God
P2: I cannot have caused myself to exist for then I would have created myself perfect.
P3: Neither have I always existed with no cause, for then I would be aware of this and require the powers of God to sustain myself in existence.
P4: My parents (or a being less than God) cannot be the cause of my existence with a perfect idea of God, as to have implanted of God, the cause needs to have as much reality or perfection as the perfect idea of God (the causal adequacy principle).
P5: The cause of my existence could itself be caused, or there would be no chain.
P6: There cannot be an infinite chain of causes, or there would be no chain.
C1: Therefore, only God, an uncaused first cause, could be the cause of my existence.
Outline Leibniz’s cosmological argument from sufficient reason
P1: Every true fact has an explanation that provides a sufficient reason for why things are as they are and not otherwise.
P2: Contingent things exist
P3: The series of contingent facts cannot be sufficiently explained by any further contingent fact, as this would itself demand explanation
P4: So, the explanation of the series of contingent facts lies outside of that series of contingent facts
C1: Therefore, only God, a necessary being, can ultimately explain the existence of contingent things
Explain Russell’s criticism that the cosmological argument commits a fallacy of composition (5)
Aquinas’ second way – ‘the argument from causation’ argues that as each thing in the universe has a cause it must therefore be true to say that the universe as a whole has a cause, but Russel argues that this commits a ‘fallacy of composition’ - where you jump from what applies to a part, and illegitimately applies to a whole. Take the example of mothers, just because each human being has a mother, does not mean that humanity as a whole has a mother, likewise, just because each individual thing in the universe has a cause, does not mean that the universe as a whole has a cause.
Explain the issue with the ontological argument from Gaunilo about the perfect island (5)
However, Gaunilo criticises Anslem’s argument, by attacking P2: ‘It is greater to exist in both the understanding and reality, than merely in the understanding’, to show its absurdity - ‘Reductio ad Absurdum’. If we can imagine something, such as an island, in the most perfect kind, then it follows using Anselm’s logic that the greatest possible island must exist in reality as it is not the greatest if it merely exists in the imagination.
