Cosmological argument

Question 1

What is the cosmological argument based on?

Answer 1

All things in the universe are contingent and do not contain within themselves the reason for their existence, so need something necessary to explain them.

Question 2

Explain Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason

Answer 2

1. Nothing takes place without their being sufficient reason for it. 2. As everything in the world is contingent, to have sufficient reason, we must get back to something that it not contingent. 3. This non contingent sufficient reason must exist outside of the world and the best explanation for it is god.

Question 3

Describe the background to the kalam cosmological argument

Answer 3

Developed by 11th century Islamic philosopher al ghazali and re-examined and updated by 20th century American Christian philosopher William lane Craig. It argues from the existence of the universe to the existence of god.

Question 4

What are the four premises of the kalam argument?

Answer 4

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Ergo, the universe must have a cause. 4. The cause must be god, this is a deductive argument that reasons from the general to the specific.

Question 5

Explain Craig’s use of the second law of thermodynamics

Answer 5

1. In an isolated system the state of entropy (the amount of unusable energy) increases with time and never decreases. 2. The universe of the past had much less entropy then it has now. 3. A universe which existed forever could not be now in the present state of disequilibrium. 4. Ergo, the universe began to exist.

Question 6

What is Aristotle’s cosmological argument?

Answer 6

1. Either the universe had an ultimate cause, or no ultimate cause. 2. If the universe had no ultimate cause, then the chain of cause and effect had no beginning. 3. This is impossible, if the chain of cause and effect had no beginning, there would be no chain! 4. Ergo, the universe must have an ultimate cause. This uses reductio ad absurdum.

Question 7

What is the main problem with the kalam argument?

Answer 7

It supposes a cause which comes into existence with no cause, how did the universe begin, what is its cause? Modern astrophysics suggests the Big Bang.

Question 8

What are Aquinas’ cosmological arguments?

Answer 8

From motion, cause and contingency. Inductive arguments which use reductio ad absurdum to disprove the idea of infinite regress.

Question 9

What are the four premises of from motion?

Answer 9

1. There are things in the universe in a state of motion. 2. Nothing can change by itself, they are all secondary movers. 3. If all things were secondary movers there would be an infinite regress of movers. 4. If this is true, there would be no prime mover, so no secondary movers. C. There are secondary movers, so there must be an unmoved prime mover.

Question 10

What are the four premises of from cause?

Answer 10

1. Every event has a cause. 2. Nothing can be its own cause. 3. If the order of causes goes back to infinity, there would be no first cause. 4. If there was no first cause, there would be no causes at all, this is false. C. There must be a first cause- god.

Question 11

What are the first three premises of from contingency?

Answer 11

1. In nature, everything can exist or not exist. 2. Given infinite time, everything will eventually not exist. 3. If there was once nothing, nothing could come from it.

Question 12

What are the last three premises of from contingency?

Answer 12

4. As something could not come from nothing, there must be something which exists necessarily. 5. Everything necessary must be caused or uncaused. 6. You can’t have an infinite series of necessary things causing each other as there’d be no explanation for the series itself. C. There must be a being that has its own necessity- god.

Question 13

Give four strengths of aquinas’ argument

Answer 13

1. Does not seek to prove a uniquely Christian god, just an uncaused necessary being, making it simpler and easier to prove. 2. Inductive arguments are based on probability and our experiences of the world seem to support the argument, raising it probability. 3. Cosmological arguments are supported by scientific arguments like the Big Bang which argue that the universe had a beginning. 4. Even if infinite regress was possible, we would still suppose it had an explanation outside of itself.

Question 14

Give three weaknesses of aquinas’ argument

Answer 14

1. Inductive arguments are only probable and don’t prove the existence of god. 2. Why does infinite regress have to be impossible? 3. If we think of what god was doing before creating the universe, we are drawn into an infinite regress where god actively chose not to create the universe.

Question 15

Give three more criticisms of the cosmological argument

Answer 15

4. 1st and 2nd ways are contradictions, they say everything has a cause, then argue that god was uncaused. 5. Could it not be that the universe is the unmoved, uncaused causer- why does this have to be god? 6. Russell argues that the universe requires no cause/explanation, it just is and is a brute fact.

Question 16

Give three points Hume made against the cosmological argument

Answer 16

1. We have no experience of the creation of the universe, so can’t speak meaningfully of it. 2. Even if the universe did begin, there’s nothing to prove it was god who caused it. 3. Sufficient reason is flawed, those who look for it for the universe are looking for something which doesn’t exist.

Question 17

What does Hume point out is the problem with causation?

Answer 17

We think of it as a first cause which sets off a chain of events and if we go back far enough, we will encounter it. This suggests that the cause no longer exists, something no theist would accept. It could be argued, however, that causation sustains an event, not just causes it.

Question 18

What is Hume’s fallacy of composition?

Answer 18

Assuming that just because something is true of the part (things in the universe), it is true of the whole (the universe.) Just because things in the universe were caused, does not mean the universe was caused.

Question 19

What is the problem with the fallacy of composition?

Answer 19

It is not formal, if we take square tiles on a floor, it would be a fallacy to assume that just because the tiles are square, the whole floor is. Yet if we replace shape with color, the fallacy stands.

Question 20

How does Kant oppose the argument?

Answer 20

1. Our knowledge of the world is limited to the world of space and time and we can’t speculate on what may exist outside of it. 2. The idea of a necessary being is a fallacy as the premise ‘god exists’ is not a self evident proposition, so it is not contradictory to deny it.