arguments for the existence of god: the cosmological argument

Question 1

Who is the key thinker behind the Cosmological Argument?

Answer 1

Aquinas

Question 2

Aquinas’ argument is ‘a posteriori’. What does this mean?

Answer 2

Arguments that depend on sense experience -> it is empirical in nature

Question 3

Aquinas’ argument is ‘inductive’. What does this mean?

Answer 3

Based on probability, the conclusion is not necessarily true, the stronger the evidence for it, the more likely it is to be true

Question 4

Aquinas’ Way 3 focuses on contingency and necessity, what did he says about the cosmos?

Answer 4

Everything in the cosmos (universe of space and time) is contingent therefore something must exist necessarily as it’s cause

Question 5

Aquinas has ‘Five Ways’ which are arguments intended to prove the existence of God but only the first three ways are set for study. What are these 3?

Answer 5

1. The First Way: Motion
2. The Second Way: Efficient Cause
3. The Third Way: Possibility and Necessity

(all of these are interconnected)

Question 6

What is Aquinas’ First Way (Motion) about?

Answer 6

The idea that everything is in constant state of motion but there must be a first prime unmoved mover in order to set everything into motion. This must be God

Question 7

What is Aquinas’ Second Way (Efficient Cause) about?

Answer 7

The idea that everything has a cause and effect but nothing can cause itself meaning there has to be a first cause and this cause must be God

Question 8

What is Aquinas’ Third Way (Possibility and Necessity) about?

Answer 8

Everything is either necessary or contingent and Aquinas believes everything in the cosmos is contingent, it is not possible for a contingent thing to exist by itself as “that which does not exist begins to exist only through something already existing.” therefore there need to be a necessary being and that’s God

Question 9

Criticism 1 of the Cosmological Argument: Russell argued that Aquinas was guilty of the fallacy of composition - what does this mean?

Answer 9

What is true of the parts in not necessarily true of the whole, just because we can see things in the world are caused, the universe itself doesn’t necessarily have a cause

Question 10

Criticism 2 of the Cosmological Argument: Russell and Hume rejected the idea of a necessary being - why?

Answer 10

Statements about existence are synthetic (based on the sense) rather than analytic (based on logic).

There is no contradiction in stating that God doesnt exist

Question 11

Criticism 3 of the Cosmological Argument: Hume argued that the universe could perhaps be the necessary being - what philosophical idea does this conform to?

Answer 11

Occam’s Razor (the idea that the conclusion is most likely if it requires less assumptions)

Question 12

Criticism 4 of the Cosmological Argument: Russell claimed perhaps the existence of the universe could simply be a brute fact - what does brute fact mean?

Answer 12

Brute fact means it is a fact that needs no explanation

Question 13

Criticism 5 of the Cosmological Argument: Hume argued that there could be a possibility of an infinite regress otherwise what caused God, but what does infinite regress mean?

Answer 13

Infinite Regress means an indefinite sequence of causes of beings which does not have a first member of the series

Question 14

Criticism 6 of the Cosmological Argument: Hume said nothing can be said about the nature of God as a necessarily existent being - what does this mean?

Answer 14

Nothing about God’s nature claims that he is a necessary being

Question 15

What is a counter argument to the Russell’s fallacy of composition?

Answer 15

This is not always the case as each of the states of the USA is in the northern hemisphere but this does not mean that the USA is in the northern hemisphere

Question 16

What is a counter argument to Hume’s idea that the universe is a necessarily existing being?

Answer 16

The case for a necessarily existing matter is no stronger than that for a necessarily existing mind.

Scientific cosmological theories do not explain why there is something rather than nothing whereas the idea of God does

Question 17

What is a counter argument to Russell’s idea that the universe is a brute fact?

Answer 17

Most people seek an explanation for things and need an explanation in order to believe in things which is how science operates

Question 18

What is a counter argument to Hume’s idea of an infinite regress?

Answer 18

This does not explain why there is something rather than nothing. There is no evidence for the existence of an infinite regress in this world so why would is his argument any more credible?

Question 19

What is a counter argument to Hume’s idea that the universe is a necessary existing being?

Answer 19

Hume misunderstood Aquias as Aquinas was talking about God’s metaphysical necessity

Question 20

What is a counter argument to ideas of more than one creator?

Answer 20

Occams Razor

Question 21

How can Aquinas’ Way 3 give proof for the existence of God?

Answer 21

• most things we accept as true are based on inductivr arguments and accepted as true beyond reasonable doubt (eg. science believes in quarks as there’s no evidence against them so in this sense, there’s no evidence against God)
• For Theist, it provides an explanation for the natural world

Question 22

How can Aquinas’ Way 3 give no proof for the existence of God?

Answer 22

• only deductive arguments can give absolute proof
• will never convince an atheist

Question 23

How is Aquinas’ Way 3 valuable for religious faith?

Answer 23

• gives a reasonable hypothesis
• simple in explanation allowing it to be accessible to all
• supported by the Design argument

Question 24

How is Aquinas’ Way 3 invaluable for religious faith?

Answer 24

• Karl Barth rejected all attempts to prove God through reason
• Stephen Evans said it’s limited as it gives no proof to a Christian theism God, only a deist God