cosmological argument

Question 1

what type of argument is the cosmological argument?

Answer 1

a posteriori

inductive

Question 2

what is an a posteriori argument?

Answer 2

It’s based on looking at evidence in the word around us

Question 3

What is an inductive argument?

Answer 3

Aims to persuade not to prove to us

* cannot prove its conclusion

Question 4

What does the inductive cosmological argument try to persuade us to?

Answer 4

That ‘the cause of the universe is what we call god’

Question 5

what is the basic concept of the cosmological argument?

Answer 5

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

Question 6

what are aquinas three ways?

Answer 6

Causation
Contingency
Motion

Question 7

What are the premises for aquinas three ways.

Answer 7

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

Question 8

What are the premises of the argument?

Answer 8

1- everything that exists has a cause
2- the universe exists
3- the universe has a cause
4- the cause is god

Question 9

What is the kalam argument?

Answer 9

-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

Question 10

when was the bbc radio debate hosted?

Answer 10

1948

Question 11

Which two scholars debated in the ‘gods existence’ debate?

Answer 11

Copleston: arguing theism
Russel: arguing atheism

Question 12

What was coplestons argument in the debate?

Answer 12

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’

Question 13

What did russle argue in the debate?

Answer 13

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

Question 14

what two scholars argue for the question of “does the universe need an explanation?”

Answer 14

Leibniz = yes
Russle= no

Question 15

Does the universe need an explanation? What do Leibniz and Russle say

Answer 15

Leibniz argues yes:
Principle of sufficient reason
Demands on external explanation

Russell argues no:
Universe is a brute fact

Question 16

What scholars argued for the question. “Is cause and effect real”

Answer 16

Aquinas: yes

David Hume: no

Question 17

What do aquinas and David Hume say about the question “is cause and effect real”

Answer 17

Aquinas =
My motion, causation + contingency we experience cause and effect all the time

David Hume=
Cause and effect is invalid + could be an illusion

Question 18

What scholars are for the question “is god a necessary being”

Answer 18

Coplston = yes

Immanuel Kant= no

Question 19

What do copleston and Immanuel Kant say about the question “is hid a necessary being”

Answer 19

Copleston= argues yes
By definition god is self explainatory he ‘cannot - not’ exist

Immanuel Kent= argues no
A necessary being is a meaningless contradiction