arguments based on observation - cosmological Flashcards
is the cosmological argument a priori or a posteriori
a posteriori
why is it aposteriori
because it uses empiricism (knowledge gained from sense experience) to gain knowledge about the existence of God from examining the cosmos - using senses
what was aquinas book called
summa theologica
which ways are aquinas’ cosmological argument
the first three
what is aquinas’ first way
the unmoved mover
explain the unmoved mover
everything in the universe moves. a thing cannot move itself, therefore it must be moved by something else. there cannot be an infinite regress. there must be a first mover - this is God
what does aquinas mean by unmoved mover
that god moves all things in the universe but is not moved himself
why is it important that God is unmoved
if god moved then what would be moving God - would lead to infinite regress
if god moved it would mean he is changing and therefore not perfect
god is not part of the movement process he is the causer
aquinas second way
uncaused causer
explain uncaused causer
everything in the world has a cause and effect. a thing cannot cause itself. therefore it must be caused by something else. we cannot have an infinite regress. there must be an uncaused cause - God
uncaused cause quote
“if you eliminate cause you also eliminate its effects, so you cannot have a last cause nor an intermediate one, unless you have a first”
what does uncaused causer mean
god causes cause and effect but is not caused himself
why is it important that god is uncaused
if god was caused that means something caused god and would lead to infinite regress
god is not part of cause and effect chain
aquinas third way
contingency and necessity
explain contingency and necessity as aquinas third way
everything is contingent - all things come into existence and out of existence
at some point there was nothing
nothing comes from nothing
if there was nothing, there would be nothing now
there must have been something then
so something exists which is necessary
we call this god
david humes criticisms (2)
fallacy of composition
cause and effect
fallacy of composition
just because everything in the universe has a cause, does not mean the universe as a whole has a cause- this is a leap of logic
fallacy = mistaken belief
humes example in the fallacy of composition
twenty particles:
if you find an explanation for each particle individually it would be wrong to then seek an explanation for the whole collection
russels support of hume - example for fallacy of compositon
every man has a mother is not proof that humanity has a mother
humes second criticism
we assume there is a relationship between cause and effect. we are in habit of seeing effects and associating with causes. not all effects have causes
we have not experienced the creation of the universe. we cannot prove empirically that there is a necessary being or that the being is God.
arguments criticising god as creator
analytic and synthetic statements
analytic statements
statements of reason - logic within them
example of analytic statement
all bachelors are unmarried men
synthetic statements
need proof
example of synthetic statements
it is raining
russel using analytic and synthetic statements against the cosmological argument
only analytic statements are ‘necessary’
you cannot have a necessary being i.e God
a ‘being’ or ‘God’ is to use a name - statements about god are synthetic - need proof of existence
cannot prove god is necessary being - so the statement is meaningless
other criticisms
why cant the universe exist without the need for explanation? like god can
cause and effect stretch infinitely into the future, so why cant it stretch infinitely into the past? so no need for first cause
Pie number is infinite - stretch into the future forever
other explanations for start of the universe
the big bang
