Arguments For The Existence Of God: Aquinas' Cosmological Argument Flashcards
Aquinas’ argument is “a posteriori”, what does this mean?
An argument that is based on sense experience
Aquinas’ argument is “empirical”, what does this mean?
An argument based on the senses
Aquinas’ argument is “inductive”, what does this mean?
An argument based on probablity
Aquinas’ Way focuses on contingency and necessity, what does Aquinas say about the cosmos?
Everything in the cosmos is contingent therefore something must exist as it’s cause Aquinas argues that something cannot come from nothing
What are Aquinas’ 5 Ways (Only need to know first 3 for exam)
- Argument from Motion
- Argument from Efficient Cause
- Argument from Necessity
- Argument from Perfection
- Argument from Design
(called Quinque viæ in his Summa Theologia)
Explain Aquinas’ Argument from Motion
- Objects are in motions
- Everything in motion was put in motion by something else
- Aquinas believes there cannot be an infinite regress of movers meaning there must be a first mover
- The first mover must be unmoved and that unmoved mover is God
Explain Aquinas’ Argument from Efficient Cause
- Some things are caused and anything caused has to be caused by something else
- Aquinas believes there cannot be an infinite regress of causes
- There must of been a first cause and that cause must be uncaused itself - God is the first cause
Explain Aquinas’ Argument from Necessity
- There are contingent things and contingent things can cause other contingent things but there must be a necessary being or nothing would exist
- The necessary being is God
Where are the majority of Bertrand Russell’s criticism from? (+quote)
Made in a radio debate in 1948 with F.C Copleston - ‘I should say that the universe is just there, and that’s all’
Criticism 1: Russell argued that Aquinas was guilty of the fallacy of composition. What does Russell mean by this?
- What is true of the parts is not necessarily true of the whole
- Just because what we see in the world is caused does not mean the world itself has a cause
What can be a counter to Russell’s First Criticism (Fallacy of Composition)?
This is not always the case:
- Each of the 50 states of the USA are in the Northern Hemisphere
- The USA is in the Northern Hemisphere
Both statements are not false
Criticism 2: Hume and Russell rejected the concept of a necessary being - why?
- Statements about God are synthetic (based on senses) rather than analytic statements (based on logic)
- As it is based on the senses, there is no contradictions in stating God does not exist
Criticism 3: Hume argues that the universe might be a necessarily existent being - what can this be a probable argument?
Occam’s Razor: the conclusion is most likely if it requires fewer assumptions.
- The universe could be necessarily existent rather than contingent upon an unseen necessarily existent God
What is a counter to Hume and Russell rejection to a necessary being?
- The case for a necessarily existing matter is no stronger than a non necessarily existing matter
- Scientific cosmological theories do not explain why there is something rather than nothing whereas idea of God does.
Criticism 4: What type of fact did Russell say the universe could be?
Brute Fact - A fact that needs no explanation
- Russell argues the universe is simply explanation
What is a counter to the universe being a brute fact?
Most people seek an explanation for things and this is how science operates
Criticism 5: Hume argued for the possibility of infinite regress - what does this mean?
Infinite Regress is an indefinite sequence of causes or being that does not have a first being
- It is a reasonable question to asked what caused God. Why would God be the only exception?
What is a counter to the idea of an infinite regress?
It still does not explain why there is something rather than nothing. Scientific theories look for explanations.
- There is no existence of an infinite past sequence in the real world so how can we argue there is an infinite regress?
Criticism 6: What did Hume say around the issue of God being a necessary being?
Nothing can be said about the nature of God as a necessarily existent being
What is the counter to Hume’s issue to God being a necessary being?
Hume misunderstood Aquinas as Aquinas was talking about God’s metaphysical necessity not necessary his logical necessity
How can Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument provide proof for the existence of God?
- For a theist, it gives them reasoned proof of God
- Most things we accept as true are based on inductive arguments - Science accepts this approach seen in the accepted of quarks in scientific theories. There is no exact proof for their existence yet they are a common accepted idea
How can Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument fail to provide proof for the existence of God?
- Will never convince an atheist
- Only deductive arguments can give absolute proof so it can never been certain
How is Aquinas’ Way 3 valuable for religious faith?
- Reasonable hypothesis - Alternative explanation for the origin of the universe have no greater probability
- Concept is easy to understand and accessible to any Christian
- Supported by other arguments for God such as the Design Argument
How is Aquinas’ Way 3 invaluable for religious faith?
- Not all theists accept it seen by Barth’s rejection of all attempts to probe God’s existence through reason
- Aquinas did not think it was sufficient on it’s own as faith is a gift from God
- Theist Stephen Evans regards the argument as having limited impact for Christianity as at best it points to a existence of a God but not necessarily the God of Christianity
