Argumemts Of Observation Flashcards
What is the cosmological argument ? [Intro]
- a posteriori and inductive arguments based on the observation of motion, cause and effect and contingency
- these can be used explain the existence of God through the use of senses (empirical evidence)
Thomas Aquinas 1225-1275 [‘summa theologica’]
Cosmological arguments : the first 3 ways
- he concludes that God exists because of motion, causation and contingency
Aquinas’ first way : motion
- all things have motion and can change
- things cannot move by themselves
- infinite regress is impossible
- therefore there must be a first mover, God
SUPPORTS
- VARDY claims that it is an undeniable premise that God exists
- AQUINAS claims that the Mover wills the universe into existence
- God is consistent with revealed theology
WEAKENS
- BETRAND RUSSELL believes the universe is just a ‘ brute fact’ as it relies on the question ‘How did the universe begin?’, therefore by removing that it becomes pointless . The universe “just is”
- ANTHONY KENNY claims that newtons law wrecks the first way, principle of inertia shows scientifically that an object can move by itself
Aquinas’ second way
- all things in existence have a cause
- nothing can cause itself
-infinite regress is impossible - hence why there must be an uncaused cause called God
SUPPORTS
- COPPLESTON would argue that there must be a first cause for the existence of the universe
WEAKNESSES
- ## HUMES fallacy of composition, just because we observe the cause and effect in the universe, doesn’t mean its applies to the universe
- IMMANUEL KANT. Causes and effect only relies on the realm of experiences, so if we did not experience the creation of the universe then we can make no claim on it
Aquinas’ third way
- all contingent beings are caused
- not everything can be contingent
- there must be a necessary being that doesn’t relie on anything to be caused
- this necessary being must be God
SUPPORTS
- LEIBNIZ suffient reason shows that things depend on other things for cause and reason
- COPPLESTON all humans beings are contingent on their parents, if we go back in history, there must have been a first necessity that didn’t need dependence
WEAKNESES
- HUMES claimed we didn’t have enough experience therefore we could talk meaningfully about God
William Lane Craig 1949- [supports Aquinas, against infinite regress]
Uses his argument against infinite regress to support Aquinas
- divides his argument into : infinite cannot exist and infinite cannot be formed
William Lane Craig 1949- [supports Aquinas, against infinite regress]
Uses his argument against infinite regress to support Aquinas
- divides his argument into : infinite cannot exist and infinite cannot be formed
INFINITE CANNOT EXIST
LIBRARY ANALOGY
- if we have a library with an infinite number of books, and we take away one book. The number will still be infinite
- there lies the contradiction as to why a infinite cannot exists
BIRTHDAY EXAMPLE
- if we have a birthday, that means there must be a second and third following it, but in order to have these you need the first birthday
- this shows that there must be one necessity that sets of the chain of reactions
Leibniz : Principle of sufficient reason
This is under the Kalaam arguments, basically saying that everything in existence has a reason as to why it is
He says…
- imagine you walk on a heath and come across a rock on the floor, you would question how it got there or why it i was there
- this is exactly the same if we zoom out, and look a the earth, the questions remain the same
WEAKNESSES
BETRAND RUSSEL thinks the complete opposite instead that the universe is just a ‘brute fact’ and when questions are removed arguments become pointless
COPPLESTON 1904-1994
COPPLESTON uses the parent exmaple
- all humans are contingent on their parents for existence, thus showing that we are dependant
- however when we go al the way back, there’s must have been a first cause to set the cycle in motion
- that must have been a necessity, non reliant but relied on, God
Aquinas Quote for third way
“ we can’t have a world where everything is contingent[…]”
David Hume 1711-1776 [criticism against the cosmological argument]
- Fallacy of composition : just because things within the universe have cause and effect doesn’t mean the universe does
- We have not experience of creating a universe, therefore cannot talk meaningfully about it
- Not enough evidence to determine what could of been (empirical)
- Even if ‘God’ did exist that doesn’t tell us that it was the God of classical theism ( Aquinas’ Christian God)
General criticisms for cosmological argument
- contradiction, as how ca the universe be finite, but God be infinite
- The Big Bang ‘proves’ that the universe was the result of the random action of quantum particle
- ## WILLIAM TEMPLE claims that an infinite regress is actually possible
Evaluation : Defending and Against the cosmological argument
Defending
- defended by the universialty of the causal principle is justified through induction
- as we have experienced many causal interactions with a cause and effect from this we can infer all effects have causes
- therefore it is empirically justified in accepting the causal principle
Against
- Because evidence
