Cosmological argument Flashcards
What are the cosmological arguments?
Seek an explanation of entire universe
Aims to prove existence of God through posteriori premises, claiming that everything depends on something else for its existence. It is often broken into two types (Causation and contingency)
Causation: Everything in universe has caused, universe itself has cause, must be God
Contingency: Everything in uni dependent on something else, uni is dependent on something else, this must be God
What is the kalam argument
Outline +ps and cs
posteriori deductive argument that aims to prove the existence of a God by looking back in time, whilst simultaneously using causation to deduce the cause of the universe.
P1- The universe is composed of temporal phenomena (things that occur and exist in time, that are preceded by other temporal phenomena in ordered in time)
P2- An infinite regress of temporal phenomena is impossible
C1- Therefore, the universe must have a beginning
P3- Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence
C2- Therefore there is a cause of the existence of the universe
P1 is a version of a causal principle everything has cause
What is Humes objection to the causal principle
Disagrees with P3 of kalam. Claims we can deny the claim that everything has a cause without contradicting ourselves.
Without contradiction we can assert “something can come out of nothing,” which can be true or false. This means the claim is not analytic, and we can only verify it through experience
Since experience cannot establish that a claim holds universally, we cannot know that everything begins to exist has a cause
What is Aquinas third way
Aims to prove God’s existence via contingency
Appeals to idea of possibility, contingency, and nessessary existences
P1- Things in universe exist contingently
P2- If it’s possible for something not to exist, then at some time it did not
C1- If everything exists contingently, at some time that it didn’t exist
P3- If nothing was in existence, nothing could begin to exist
C2- things do exist, so was never nothing in existence
C3- Therefore there is something that exists necessarily
P4-this necessary being is God
C4- Therefore God exists
Response to Humes objection
(Causal principle)
One response to Hume’s objection is to accept that it shows the kalam argument does not prove God exists. Hume accepts that we have good reason to think everything has a cause
Humes objection to Aquinas’s 3rd way
Disagrees with P2, claims it looks puzzling and false.
Just because its possible for something not to exist doesn’t mean it actually doesn’t exist at some time
No reason to think everything that is possible actually happens
Also disagrees with C2
If everything exists contingently, then at some point nothing existed
Again, just cause its possible doesn’t follow that there was actually nothing
Equally possible that there has always been and always will be a contingent thing in the universe
Hume: Impossibility of a necessary being
(Counter to Aquinas ways)
Takes aim at conclusion of the world being dependent on something else for existence, and aims to show that the concept of necessity cant be applied to things that exist, meaning a necessary being isn’t possible
P1-Nothing that is dinstinctly concievable entails a contradiciton
P2-For any being we can concieve as existent, can also be concieved as non existent
C-Therefore there isn’t a being whos non existence entails a contradiction
-For hume, I can say God doesn’t exist, without contradiction, meaning God exists isn’t a necessary truth
Aquinas 2nd way
Deductive argument to prove existence of God via efficient causality
P1-We know through experience that the world contains efficent causes
P2- Nothing can be the efficient cause of itself
P3-if the series of efficient causes was infinite there wouldn’t be a first cause
P4-If there wasn’t a first cause there wouldnt subsequent causes
C-Therefore there is a first cause, and we call this God
Aquinas 1st way
Posteriori deductive argument to prove Gods existence through motion (Potentially x to actually x)
P1-Universe contains motion
P2-Nothing can move change itself (nothing can actualise its own potential) and must be changed by something distinct
P3- If there was an infinite series of changers there wouldn’t be a first changer
P4-If there wasn’t a first changer there wouldn’t be any motion (If you remove the cause, you cannot have an effect)
C1-Therefore given P1 there must be a first changer
P5-God is this first changer
C2-Therefore God exists
Leibniz cosmological from sufficient reasoning
Deductive argument that focuses on contingency of facts
P1- Principle:Every fact has an explanation that provides a sufficient reason for why things are the way it is/otherwise
P2-Two kinds truth: reasoning and facts
Reasoning-Necessary, their opposites are impossible, and the sufficent reason of this is found by apriori analysis
Fact: Contingent, opposite is possible, the sufficent reason of fact cannot be found in other contingent truths, as they require a reason
C1-Therefore to provide a sufficient reason for contingent fact, we must look outside the sequence of them
C2-Therefore the sufficent reason of a contingent fact must be a necessary substance
C3-This necessary substance is God
C4-Therefore he exists
Kalam response to hume
One response to Hume’s objection is to accept that it shows the kalam argument does not prove God exists. Hume accepts that we have good reason to think everything has a cause
