cosmological argument

Question 1

definition of contingent

Answer 1

contingent beings/things are dependent for their existence on other beings or things - they can not exist

Question 2

what sort of argument is way 3

Answer 2

a posteriori / inductive

Question 3

in what way is the cosmo. arg, based on observation?

Answer 3

it relies on the observation that everything in the universe is contingent

Question 4

summary of the premises and conclusions of the argument

Answer 4

p1 everything can exist or not exist; that is, everything in the natural world is contingent

p2 if everything is contingent, then at some time there was nothing, because there must have been a time where nothing had begun to exist

p3 if there was once nothing, then nothing could have come from nothing

c1 therefore something must exist necessarily, otherwise nothing would now exist - obviously false

c2 therefore, there must be some uncaused being which exists of its own necessity

c3 and by this, we all understand god

Question 5

fallacy of composition

Answer 5

the fallacy of inferring that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of part or all parts of the whole

Question 6

russell’s example of fallacy of composition

Answer 6

“every man who exits has a mother, and it seems to me your argument is that therefore the human race must have a mother, but obviously the human race doesn’t have a mother - that’s a different logical sphere”

Question 7

how does russell claim way 3 is a fallacy of composition?

Answer 7

way 3 argues that:
from: 1 every thing in the universe is contingent
to: 2 the universe as a whole is contingent

russell says we can equally claim that:
from: 1 every thing in the universe is contingent
to: 2 but the universe as a whole is necessary