Cosmological arguements Flashcards
What is cosmological
Stidy of the origin of the universe.
Kalaam argument
P1:Everything that exists has a cause of its existneve.
P2: The universe began to exist
C1: There fore the ujiverse has a cause of its existnece.
P3: If the universe has a cause, the cause kust be what we describe as god.
C: God exists.
Objection to Kalaam argument:
Infinite regress
Can infitnity actually exist? Hilbert hotel shows peopme arrive and leave the hotel, without changing the number of rooms, bit it is still full. This is a paradox as infinity + 1= infinity and infinity + infinity = infinity cannot both be true. So actual infinity is a paradox.
Descartes arguemnt from continued existence.
P1: From my existing at one time, it doesnt follow that i exist at other times.
P2: I am aware of no power in me that causes my continued existence.
P3: So i am not responsible for my existnce, it kust be external.
C1: The cause is either sometj8ng less perfect than god, or god hinself.
P4:I am a thinking thing and have a perfect idea of god.
P5: A cause kust have as much reality as effect.
P6: The caue3 of that idea cannot be less perfect than god.
C2: My xontinued expreience cannot be explained by soemthing less perfect than god.
C3: The caue3 of my existence as a thinking thing must be a perfect god.
Objection to Descartes:
Causal princiole.
The causal princioke is kot a relation of ideas (analttically trie), it is only inferred theough observation (matters of fact).
We can onky infer causation wuen we have observed it many times.
We have not observed the cause of any universe, let alone multi0le times. So we cannot know the cauee of the universe as we havent observed it before.
Leobniz’ argument
P1: The principle of efficient reason: every fact has an explination that provides a sufficient reason for why things are as they are and not otherwise.
P2: There are two kinds of truth: A.truths of reasoning: neccessary and the opposite is impossible.
B. Truths of fact:contingent and the opposite is possible.
C1: Therefore, to provide sufficient reasom for anu contingent fact, we musy look outside the sequence of cintingent facts.
C2: Thereforehe sufficient reasinson for contingent fact kust be a neccessary substance that is a sufficient reason for all comtingent facts.
C3: This neccessary substance is god, so he exists.
Objection to Leibniz:
Gallacy of composition
It is a fallacy to say that one part is simikar or equal to a qhole. Just because every truth requires an explination, why does the universe as a whole require an explination.
If we can explain how individual parts of thr world are caused, why do we need a further explination for the whole thing?
Objection to Leibniz:
Impossibility of a neccessary being.
P1: Notjing is nesccessary unless its coktrary implies a contradiction
P2: Nothing that is distinctly conceivable implies a contradiction.
P3: What ever we conceive of as existant, we can conceive of as non existantc1: Therefor3, there is no being whixh non existence implies a contradiction.
C2: Yherefore, there is no being whos existemce us jeccessary.
Aquinas’ first way:
P1: Thungs in the world are in motion
P2: Movement is a reduction from potentiallity to actuality
P3: Nothingcan be reduced from potentiality to actuality unless its already in actuality.
P4: The same thin cannot be bith potentiality and actuality something.
C1: Yherefore, a thing that is moved cannot move itself.
C2: Therefore, what is koved must be koved by anither
P5: There cannot be an infinite regress
C3: Therefore, there kust be an unmoved mover, whuch is god.
Objection to first qave :
Infinite regress.
Aquinas’ second way
P1: we know through experience that the qorld contains efficient causes.
P2: Nothing can be the efficient cause of itself
P3: If the series od officient causes was infinite there woukd be no first efficient cause.
P4: If there was no first eggicient cause, there woukd be no subsequent efficient causes.
C1: Therefore there us a forst efficient cause, and this is what we call god.
Objection to Aquinas’ second way:
Causal principle
Aquinas’ third way
P1: contingent beings exist in the universe.
P2: if everything were contingent, there qould be a time when nothing existed.
P3: If this were so, then there woukd be nothing now as nothing comes from nothing.
P4: As contingent things do exist, there must be soemthing thay exists neccessarily.
C1: Therefore, there must be siemthing that exists meccessarily.
P5: A neccessary being hasbits own neccessity.
C2: The being which has its own nwsccesiry all men understand as god.
C3: God exists.
Objection to third wave:
Fallacy of composition.
Objection to third wave:
A neccessary being is impossible
