3.3.2 Arguments relating to the existence of God: 12 markers Flashcards
Explain the Kalam argument and the issue that an infinite series/regress is possible
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
However, one could criticise the Kalam argument by attacking P2 ‘Actual infinites cannot exist (because they produce logical contradictions)’, arguing that an infinite regress is possible. The Scientific raises some questions about what exactly the Big Bang demonstrates, we have not ruled out something existing prior to the Big Bang and the possibility that the universe has existed many times over, coming into and disappearing out of existence, perhaps infinitely.
-> Furthermore, some atheist philosophers have argued that it is perfectly conceivable for there to be an infinite series of causes. Nielson explains that the person arguing for an infinite series is not arguing for something that came from nothing, nor need be denying that every event has a cause - we need not assume there is a first cause that started everything.
Explain Aquinas’ three ways
In his book Summa Theologica Aquinas offers five different proofs of Gods existence. Three of them are cosmological arguments. There are two kinds of cosmological arguments which fall between contingency and causal arguments. The contingency argument relies on the dependency of things in the universe on something else, and the causal argument, rely on their being a first cause to the universe.
Aquinas’ ‘First way - the argument from motion’ can be put formally as follows:
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
Aquinas’ ‘Second way - the argument from causation’ can be put formally as follows:
P1: We find, in the world, causes and effects
P2: nothing can be the cause of itself (if it were, it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible).
P3: If the chain of causes were infinite and there were no first cause, there would be no effects, i.e. no world
C1: Therefore, given that there are no causes, there cannot be an infinite regress of causes
C2: Therefore, there must be a first cause, which is not itself caused.
Aquinas’ ‘Third way - the argument from contingency’ can be put formally as follows:
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 dies not exist contingently, but must exist - this necessary being is God
Explain Aquinas’ second way and the issue of a fallacy of composition
Aquinas’ ‘Second way - the argument from causation’ can be put formally as follows:
P1: We find, in the world, causes and effects
P2: nothing can be the cause of itself (if it were, it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible).
P3: If the chain of causes were infinite and there were no first cause, there would be no effects, i.e. no world
C1: Therefore, given that there are no causes, there cannot be an infinite regress of causes
C2: Therefore, there must be a first cause, which is not itself caused.
However, Aquinas’ ‘Second way - the argument from causation’ can criticised by arguing that it commits a fallacy of composition. Aquinas 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.
