Cosmological Argument

Question 1

What is the cosmological argument?

Answer 1

• A posteriori and inductive, so is based on observation.
• Based on the observation that all things we see in the universe are contingent, they are moved, changed, and caused.
• From the observation and contingency, Aquinas concluded that something must exist necessarily.

Question 2

What are the two parts of Aquinas’ way 3?

Answer 2

• Argument from contingency
  o Everything is contingent, so at some time there was nothing.
  o No contingent being is eternal, so there must have been a time when nothing existed.
  o If there was a time when nothing existed, then nothing would exist now because ‘out of nothing, nothing can come’, alas contingent things now exist.
• Argument from necessity
  o In the second part, Aquinas rejects the idea that there might be an infinite series of caused necessary beings.
  o That would also be absurd, because then there would be no ultimate cause of the series.
  o So, there must be an ‘uncaused’ necessary being who sustains all caused necessary beings and all contingent beings.
  o This is God.

Question 3

What are Russell’s criticisms?

Answer 3

o This is the fallacy of inferring that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of part of the whole, or of every part of the whole.
o Everything in the universe is contingent, the universe as a whole is contingent.
o This is fallacious because we can claim that every-thing in the universe is contingent, but the universe as a whole is not necessary.
* Counter – Reichenbach
o Way 3 resembles the form of the argument, the wall is built from bricks, so the wall is brick, which is not fallacious.
o Way 3 says, the universe is built from contingent things, so the universe is contingent.
o This may be wrong, but the form of the argument is not a fallacy.
* Criticism
o The universe is a brute fact
* Counter
o If the universe is unexplainable, it seems very odd that science works on the opposite principle.

Question 4

What are Hume’s criticisms?

Answer 4

• Criticism
  o The words ‘necessary being’ are meaningless.
• Counter
  o Aquinas is not referring to God as a physical necessity but rather as a metaphysical necessity.
  o Aquinas means that the existence of contingent things requires the existence of a being whose necessity is form itself, and who causes all contingent beings, and all caused necessary beings to exist.
• Criticism
  o The universe itself may exist necessarily
• Counter
  o Aquinas accepts this but argues that the universe could only exist necessarily if it was brough into existence by an ‘uncaused’ necessary being.

Question 5

What are the weaknesses of Aquinas argument?

Answer 5

• Russell, Way 3 commits the fallacy of composition
• Russell, brute fact
• Could be a group of inferior necessary beings

Question 6

What are the strengths of Aquinas argument?

Answer 6

• Reichenbach, brick wall
• Science
• Aquinas argues that unless there is one being who contains within itself the reason for its own existence, then the existence of ‘anything’ is inexplicable.

Question 7

What is the value of Aquinas’ argument for religious faith?

Answer 7

• It does show faith to be reasonable
• Anybody with faith can understand the evidence used in the third way.
• However, some believers will not accept Aquinas’ argument, for example, Kant and Barth.
• For Aquinas, faith in God is supported by reason, but faith does not come from reasoned arguments, but through God’s grace.
• Is Aquinas justified in assuming that the necessary being of his philosophical argument is the same as the personal and moral God of Christianity, with whom one can have a relationship.