cosmological argument Flashcards
what type of argument is the cosmological argument?
a posteriori
inductive
what is an a posteriori argument?
It’s based on looking at evidence in the word around us
What is an inductive argument?
Aims to persuade not to prove to us
* cannot prove its conclusion
What does the inductive cosmological argument try to persuade us to?
That ‘the cause of the universe is what we call god’
what is the basic concept of the cosmological argument?
based on the concept of causation (the law of cause and effect)
- they rule out infinite regress (creation could not have gone on forever and ever)
Instead there must be a first cause:
The cause is not
PHYSICAL - spiritual?
NOT TIME-BOUND -eternal?
NOT CAUSED - necessary?
1ST CAUSE IS GOD
what are aquinas three ways?
Causation
Contingency
Motion
What are the premises for aquinas three ways.
There are things that are
- in motion
- caused
- contingent
They require something else to move/cause or create them
This chain can’t go on forever
- THERE MUST EXIST AN UNMOVED MOVER
god
What are the premises of the argument?
1- everything that exists has a cause
2- the universe exists
3- the universe has a cause
4- the cause is god
What is the kalam argument?
-Rediscovered by William lame Craig
- modified version of the cosmological argument
premises:
1- everything that begins to exist has a cause
2- the universe began to exist
3- the universe has a cause
4- that cause is god
GOD IS ETERNAL = has no beginning/cause
when was the bbc radio debate hosted?
1948
Which two scholars debated in the ‘gods existence’ debate?
Copleston: arguing theism
Russel: arguing atheism
What was coplestons argument in the debate?
he argued using aquinas 3rd way: contingency
his logic was that everything in the universe is contingent = the universe is contingent
- there must be a being that ‘must cannot exist’
What did russle argue in the debate?
He argued that the universe is ‘self coherent’ = so needs no external explanation
- we should accept that the universe is a ‘brute fact’
- he accepted the idea of infinite regress
—-> infinite past = infinite future
what two scholars argue for the question of “does the universe need an explanation?”
Leibniz = yes Russle= no
Does the universe need an explanation? What do Leibniz and Russle say
Leibniz argues yes:
Principle of sufficient reason
Demands on external explanation
Russell argues no:
Universe is a brute fact
What scholars argued for the question. “Is cause and effect real”
Aquinas: yes
David Hume: no
What do aquinas and David Hume say about the question “is cause and effect real”
Aquinas =
My motion, causation + contingency we experience cause and effect all the time
David Hume=
Cause and effect is invalid + could be an illusion
What scholars are for the question “is god a necessary being”
Coplston = yes
Immanuel Kant= no
What do copleston and Immanuel Kant say about the question “is hid a necessary being”
Copleston= argues yes
By definition god is self explainatory he ‘cannot - not’ exist
Immanuel Kent= argues no
A necessary being is a meaningless contradiction
