Arguments for Existence of God - The Cosmological Argument Flashcards
about St Thomas Aquinas
Was influenced by Aristotle who did not believe in the God of classical theism but did believe in a prime mover
Was also influenced by The Bible and its teachings of God and the theology that comes from this
background about cosmological ways and what required to know by syllabus
cosmology is the study of the universe and Aquinas suggested five arguments for God’s existence which are known as the Five Ways.
The first three are all versions of the cosmological argument
syllabus only requires us to know the third way.
Aquinas’ first way
The Unmoved Mover (The Unchanged Changer)
Everything that moves/changes is moved/changed by something else
That mover must also be moved by something else
There cannot be infinite regress (ie we have to stop somewhere)
Therefore there must be a mover, which is responsible for moving everything, whilst remaining unmoved itself
The unmoved mover is what people understand by God
Aquinas’ second way
Everything has a cause
Every cause has its own cause
There cannot infinite regress (ie the causes have to stop somewhere )
Therefore there has to be causer which causes everything else to happen without being caused itself
This uncaused causer is what people understand by God
Aquinas’ third way - the one required to know
P1- Everything can exist or not-exist: that is, everything in the natural world is contingent
P2- If everything is contingent then at some time there was nothing, because there must have been a time when nothing had begun to exist
P3-If there was once nothing then nothing could have come from nothing
C1-Therefore something must exist necessarily otherwise nothing would exist now which is obviously false
P4- Everything necessary must either be caused or uncaused
P5- But the series of necessary beings cannot be infinite, or there would be no explanation of that series
C2- Therefore there must be some uncaused being which exists of its own necessity
C3- And by this, we all understand God.
way 3. is inductive or deductive
inductive because perhaps not God or God of classical theism
Quote for 3rd way St Aquinas
‘that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing’
is 3rd way contingency and necessity argument a posteriori or a priori
a posteriori based on observation
is 3rd way an analytic or synthetic statement
based off a synthetic statement
Russell criticism
fallacy of composition
just due to what we see in the world is caused does not mean the world as a whole is caused.
‘Just because every man has a mother does not mean that the human race has a mother’
There can be no such thing as a necessary being - existence is not a predicate as Kant said…
The universe is just a ‘brute fact’’’’ we cannot explain it
Russell criticism objections
check if this is not for Okhams razor but Brute fact could be that God created the world not that it simply exists
Because everything in the universe needs a reason for its existence, it doesn’t follow that the whole universe needs a similar explanation. After all, just because theoretically every cell of an elephant could be lifted by hand, it doesn’t follow the whole elephant can be lifted in this way. Likewise, what applies to the parts of the universe may not apply to the whole universe.
But sometimes what applies to parts does apply to the whole. For example, if every piece of my Lego spaceship is red, then my whole Lego spaceship will be red. Likewise, if every part of the universe is contingent, then the whole universe must be contingent as well.
So the problem with this objection is that the fallacy of composition is an informal fallacy. It can’t be formally proven but only recognized after the fact, such as when you acknowledge that an elephant can’t be lifted with one hand even though all of its cells can be.
If the atheist wants to convince a believer of atheism, the burden of proof is on him to show that the contingency argument makes a mistaken part-to-whole reasoning. He can’t merely point out that there is some part-to-whole reasoning being used and call that a fallacy; because sometimes, as we saw in the case of the Lego spaceship, such reasoning is not mistaken. Similarly, it would become a “fallacy of composition” to say that because every part of the universe exists, it follows that the whole universe exists—which is obviously true.
To summarize, unless an atheist can give us an objective reason to think the universe is necessary and not contingent, then he can’t rely on the fallacy of composition to prove that the universe is not like all of its parts—in other words, a contingent entity that can fail to exist.
Hume’s criticisms
There is no contradiction in saying God does not exist
Existence must be proven - statements should be synthetic
The universe could be necessary (more likely - usings OCkham’s razor)
There could be infinite regress
If God is the cause then what caused God - circular
Even if God was necessary, does that mean God is The God of Classical Theism, eg could be many or an apprentice
Also cause and effect could be an illusion - read this
But learn this debate and objection to it also how this links to Contingency argument and God’s existence
Hume’s criticisms objection
Some atheists say that if we just explain every part of the universe then that will explain why the whole universe exists. Trent Horn refutes this objection in the book Answering Atheism:
Explaining why each part of the universe exists, even in a “circle of explanation,” does not explain why an entire universe exists at all. That would be like trying to explain why a baseball game is being played simply by explaining what each player in the game does (i.e., the batter is hitting a ball thrown by the pitcher, who takes a cue from the shortstop, who watches the man on second . . .). That strategy may explain each part of the baseball game, but it doesn’t explain why there is a baseball game happening.
Russell is simply saying that the Argumentum ex ratione causae efficientis is self-defeating because it requires a cause to the universe but God being uncaused, which is logically inconsistent. Thomas Aquinas would respond, “but if there is no true First Cause, then existence would be impossible; thus one must admit that there is an uncaused First Cause perpetually in existence.”
Learn that
The most basic question
You should encourage those who lack a belief in God to not brush off the question of why the universe exists instead of nothing at all with a simple, “Science will figure it out.” That’s because science, the universe, and everything we know fall under the umbrella of “that which does not have to be yet is, and therefore must have an explanation for why it is.” Only a being for which existence is not a luxury but the core of what it is can be capable of explaining life’s greatest mystery. And the only being who can fit that lofty description is the almighty God.
