arguments based observation- cosmological Flashcards
explain how cosmological arguments are usually a posteriori
Cosmological arguments are typically a posteriori arguments, which means they are based on experience.
The cosmological argument is based on observation of everything in the universe having a cause, being in motion or being contingent and therefore requiring a creator.
These observations form the premises of cosmological arguments. On the basis of those observations, an inference is then made to the nature of the origin of the universe being God
explain the cosmological arguments from causation- aquinas’s ways
Aquinas’ first two ways are developed from Aristotle’s theory of efficient causation, which attempts to explain the change we observe. Aristotle thought that change required a prime mover which sustains the motion and causation we experience.
Efficient causation involves sustaining causes, those which bring about their effect continuously, such that if they ceased to exist then their effect would also cease to exist.
E.g., the gravity of the earth causes the moon to be in orbit, which in turn causes the sea tides to rise and fall on earth.
explain the cosmological argument from the aquinas 1st way using cause
motion
Change requires going from potential to actual, which depends on something that is actual, which cannot depend merely on other potential things, so there must be something of pure actuality. A thing that is purely actual with no potential cannot change, it is an unmoved mover or uncaused causer.
Aquinas’ 1st way (motion)
P1. We observe that there are things in motion.
P2. Motion is the actualization of a thing’s potential to be in motion.
P3. A thing can only come to be in motion by being moved.
P4. A mover must be something that is actual, i.e., in a state of actuality.
P5. A thing cannot move itself.
C1. So, all things in motion must have been moved by a mover, which was also moved by another mover.
P6. There cannot be an infinite regress of movers, otherwise there would be no first mover and then no motion.
C2. Therefore, there must be a first mover which must itself be unmoved (as it is pure actuality). That thing we call God.
explain cosmological argument using aquinas’s 2nd way
atemporal causation
P1. We observe efficient causation.
P2. Nothing can cause itself.
P3. There is a logical order to sustaining causes: the first cause, then intermediate causes, then an ultimate effect.
P4. If A is the efficient cause of B, then if A doesn’t exist neither does B.
C1. There must be a first sustaining cause, otherwise P1 would be false as there would be no further sustaining causes or effects.
C2. As there is a first cause, there cannot be an infinite regress of causes.
C3. The first cause must itself be uncaused. That thing we call God.
Aquinas’ first two ways treat the relationship between cause and effect as ontologically real but not temporal, although they are consistent with a temporal understanding of cause and effect. They point to the logical implications of there being sustaining causes. This is why especially Aquinas’ 2nd way is called a cosmological argument from ‘atemporal causation’.
The first and second way attempt to show God must exist as the first mover or causer. The word ‘first’ in the concept of a first cause or first mover is not meant to indicate it being ‘first’ in time, but ontologically first in the sense that motion and causation are ontologically dependent on it.
explain hume’s objection to the ‘casual principle’
The strength of cosmological arguments from causation is that they are based on the causal principle, which is that every event has a cause, or that every contingent being has a cause of its existence.
Hume argues that the causal principle is not true by definition (analytic). There doesn’t appear to be anything incoherent in the idea of an event or thing existing without a cause. It is conceivable and not obviously self-contradictory. We can imagine something popping into existence without a cause. The idea of a four-sided triangle is obviously self-contradictory because the idea of triangle contradicts the idea of four-sides. Yet, the idea of an event doesn’t seem contradicted by the idea of no cause.
the causal principle can only be justified on a posteriori grounds, which makes it a synthetic truth. The problem is, claims based on experience cannot be known with certainty to be true in all cases.
the universe could exist without a cause. The cosmological argument therefore fails because in attempting to argue for God’s existence as the required explanation of the universe, it assumes that the universe has a cause.
explain cosmological argument using aquinas’s 3rd way-contingency
P1. We observe that there are contingent beings.
P2. A series of contingent beings cannot regress infinitely into the past.
C1. So, a series of contingent beings must be finite.
P3. If this finite series was all that existed, then before it would be nothing.
P4. If there was once nothing, there would be nothing now, which is absurd.
C1. So, there must be more than this finite series of contingent beings, i.e., a necessary being.
P5. There cannot be an infinite regress of necessary beings.
C3. There must be a necessary being “having of itself its own necessity … That thing we call God.”
explain Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason
Leibniz improves on Aquinas’ 3rd way by removing unnecessary reasoning about nothing once existing.
Leibniz’ argument is a priori, it doesn’t require inference from experience. The downside of a posteriori arguments is that they are defeasible, meaning in principle future experiences could always prove them false. A priori arguments based on logic are stronger.
This strengthens the argument by making it dependent on only one claim.
P1. For every true fact or assertion, there is a “sufficient reason why it is thus and not otherwise.”
P2. There are two types of truth: truths of reasoning and truths of fact.
P2a. Truths of reasoning are necessary, so their opposite is impossible. The sufficient reason for truths of reasoning can be discovered a priori.
P2b. Truths of fact are contingent, so their opposite is possible. The sufficient reason for truths of fact cannot be discovered through other contingent truths, because they too require a sufficient explanation, and so on.
C1. A sufficient reason for contingent facts must be found outside a series of contingent things.
C2. The sufficient reason for contingent facts must be a necessary substance.
C3. That necessary substance is God.
C4. So, God exists.
explain the fallacy of composition
This criticism explicitly attacks cosmological arguments from contingency
Just because the parts of a set/series of contingent beings have an explanation, that doesn’t mean the whole set/series has an explanation.
Experience shows that parts of the universe are contingent & have a cause/explanation. This doesn’t mean the universe itself as a whole must also be contingent (have a cause/explanation).
The only empirical way to believe a whole series has an explanation is to commit the fallacy of composition by assuming the whole is like the parts. So, a posteriori cosmological arguments commit the fallacy of composition by assuming that the universe has a cause when all we experience is that parts of the universe have a cause.
this is the problem with aquinas’s third way
what does copleston argue?- evaluation defending the cosmological argument
They argue that a series of contingent things must have an external cause. Copleston argues:
P1. A series is either caused or uncaused.
P2. If a series is uncaused, the reason for its existence must be internal to it, making it necessary.
P3. No amount of contingent things can be necessary, not even an infinite number of them, so a series of contingent things cannot be necessary.
C1. So, a series of contingent things must have an external cause like a necessary being.
how is contingency a strength of the cosmological argument
A strength of cosmological arguments from contingency is that their conclusions achieve more than arguments from causation. They can establish God’s necessity, meaning inability to cease existing, which is a key element of Christian theology. Aquinas understands necessity to mean the inability to cease existing, which fits with the concept of omnipotence.
a priori vs a posteriori hume’s fork
A priori reasoning can only tell us about the relations between ideas, i.e. analytic knowledge (true by definition). E.g. “a bachelor is an unmarried man”.
A posteriori reasoning can only tell us about matters of fact, i.e. synthetic knowledge (true by the way the world is). E.g. “The sun will rise tomorrow”.
A being whose existence is logically necessary is an absurdity to Hume. A thing’s existence is a matter of fact. All matters of fact can be conceived false and denied without contradiction. So, anything which could exist could also not exist. The concept of a being which ‘must’ exist, whose existence cannot be denied without contradiction, is therefore absurd
truths of logic/definition are necessary, because they will be true no matter what happens regarding the factual state of the universe.
shows there is a disconnect between logical (analytic) truths which are necessary (cannot be otherwise) and factual (synthetic) truths which can. The term “necessary existence” violates this disconnect.
We cannot know that a being’s existence is logically necessary, since a being’s existence cannot be established through logic.
Issues around the possibility of an infinite series
The idea of an infinite regress may be difficult to comprehend, but there is no obvious logical contradiction in the idea. The concept of ‘time’ does not seem contradicted by the predicate of ‘infinitely regressing into the past’
modern science vs cosmological argument
the steady state theory, which was that the universe had always existed and that there is a continuous creation of matter which expands. However in the mid 20th century, the discovery of the microwave background radiation provided very strong evidence against steady state and for the big bang theory. Steady state theory leaves no room for a creator God because it claims the universe was not created but has always existed,
