Arguments for God's existence - Cosmological Argument Flashcards
the cosmological argument
The cosmological argument usually refers to the presence of the cosmos as evidence for God instead of the nature of the cosmos (design arguments). It simply asks: why is there something instead of nothing?
three of aquinas’s five ways
The classic formulations of the cosmological argument can be found in the first three of Aquinas’ five ways. But these have their roots in Aristotelian philosophy.
aquinas’s first way
All things are potentially moving (ie. they can change into something else)
- An acorn can change into an oak.
To move from one state to another, all things require something actual to move them from their state of potentiality.
- A stick is potentially on fire and only becomes actually on fire when an actual flame is applied to it.
Things cannot move themselves from a state of potential to actual. This means everything requires something else to move it. But you must have a first mover that is not moved itself to cause the movement of other things. If you did not, there would be no explanation for the movement of the things which are currently in motion because you cannot keep going back forever in the chain of movement.
The first mover that imparts motion onto other things without being moved itself is called God.
Aquinas’ second way
All things are caused by other things.
Nothing can be the cause of itself.
You cannot keep going back in the series of causes forever, or you would have no things now – if there was no initial cause, there could not be other causes.
There must be a first cause, itself uncaused, which began the causes.
This is what people call God.
aquinas’ third way
All things can possibly not exist (all things are contingent).
If time is infinite, there must have been a point when there was nothing.
If there was nothing once, there would be nothing now.
There must be something that is necessary (impossible not to exist).
Everything that is necessary is either caused by another necessary thing or not.
You cannot have an infinite series of such causes.
There must be an uncaused necessary being.
This is what people call God.
criticisms of Aquinas’ three ways
Hume – we have no experience of universes being made, so we cannot claim to know what caused this one.
It may be that an infinite regress is possible. This relates to the oscillating universe hypothesis - our universe alternates between the Big Bang and the Big Crunch, ours can be the first of many possible universes).
It may be that the universe itself is necessary.
Why assume that the necessary thing is a being, or even a being called God?
who claimed, countering the cosmological argument, that as we have no experiences being made, we cannot claim to know what caused this one
hume
hume’s criticisms of the cosmological argument
David Hume saw the following faults in the cosmological argument.
against sufficient reason
the fallacy of composition
limitation: fallacy of composition
reality of the ‘whole’
‘universe’ - a convenient word
no cause/always existed
like causes produce like effects
causation - psychological effects
existential propositions
against sufficient reason
Hume attacks the principle of sufficient reason on which Aquinas’ third way is founded.
- This principle states that there should be a total explanation rather than a partial one for any phenomenon.
the fallacy of composition
Hume argues that you cannot move from saying individual elements of the universe require an explanation to the whole universe requires one.
- This is to commit the fallacy of composition. This is to assume that just because all the individual members of a group of things have a certain property, the group itself has that property.
- For instance, just because all the tiles on a floor are square, this does not mean that the whole floor has to be square – it could be many other shapes.
limitation: fallacy of composition
But the fallacy of composition is not formal and does not always hold.
- If you substitute colour for shape in the floor tile example, the fallacy doesn’t work (if every floor tile is red, then the whole floor WILL be red).
So the question is whether contingency is more like shape or colour in the floor tile analogy. It is difficult to see, if everything in the universe is dependent on other things for existence, how the universe as a whole could not also be dependent on something else for existence.
reality of the ‘whole’
Hume questions the reality of the ‘whole’ that people refer to, saying that ‘whole’ things are usually created by “arbitrary acts of the mind”.
- E.g. When we unite several counties into one kingdom, this has no influence on the nature of things. It is simply a human perception.
what principle, which underlines Aquinas’ third way, does Hume attack in his criticism of the cosmological argument
the principle of sufficient reason
‘universe’ - a convenient word
The word ‘universe’ could be just a convenient term for our own perceptions, rather than referring to any reality.
Modern physics seem to provide some support for this – with the view of ‘pocket universes’ which exist within larger ones. To look for a ‘whole’ gets very difficult in this view.
no cause/always existed
Hume says that it is not inconceivable that the world had no cause or just always existed.
- He says “it is neither intuitively nor demonstratively certain” that every object that begins to exist owes its existence to a cause.
like causes produce like effects
Hume says that like causes produce like effects.
- For example, parent rabbits produce baby rabbits.
- So as many things in the universe seem to be the offspring of two parents, why should we assume that there is one male ‘parent’ of the universe – wouldn’t it make more sense to postulate a male and female creator God?
causation - psychological effect
To base an argument on causation is foolish as we can never be sure that causation is anything other than a psychological effect.
In fact, it is more foolish in the case of the universe, because as we lack past experience of formation of universes, we haven’t even got anything to base our ‘habit of mind’ on.
existential propositions
Any being that exists can also not exist, and there is no contradiction implied in conceiving its non-existence. But this is exactly what would have to be the case if its existence were necessary.
So the term ‘necessary being’ makes no sense a posteriori – any being claimed to exist may or may not exist.
In Hume’s own words: “all existential propositions are synthetic.”
According to Hume, “all existential propositions are” what
synthetic
why did Hume think it was foolish to base an argument about the creation of the universe on causation
we haven’t got any experience of the universes forming so we haven’t got anything to base out ‘habit of mind’ on
questioning the reality of the ‘whole’
Hume says ‘whole’ things are usually created by “arbitrary acts of the mind”. For example, when we unite several counties into 1 kingdom, we don’t influence the nature of things - just human perception.
what does Hume imply using offspring as potential evidence
a male and female creator God is more logical than just a male creator
what problems did Hume see with the cosmological argument?
anything that exists can also not exist, so the universe may not necessarily exist
causation might just be a psychological effect
a male and female creator God is more likely than a sole male creator God
The word ‘universe’ might not describe reality; just our perceptions
the world might have always existed or might not have a cause
