cosmological argument

Question 1

terms
a posteriori- empiricle in nature, snese experience
inductive- based on probability
focuses on contingency and necessity
everything in the cosmos is contingent
somethings therefore must exist necessarily as its cause

Question 2

aquanas 3rd way- summa theologica
- 5 ways first 3 swetout argument to prove existence- 3rd is seen as most important
two parts
p1
- everything in world is contingent. must have been a time when nothing existed. out of nothing, nothing can come- however vast numbers of contingent things now exist
- ///// therefore something must exist necessarily
p2
- everything that is necessary must be caused or uncaused. infinite regression of caused necessary beings- humans, angels- however there has to be an end one uncaused causer.
- ////
- so there must be a uncaused necessary being responsible for existence of caused necessary beigs and contingent beings
- ////
- “ this all men speak of as god”

Question 3

criticism of hume and russel
1
- russel argues aquinkas is guilty of fallacy of composition
- what is true of parts isnt true of the whole
- just ciz we see caused things in the world doesnt mean universe itself has a cause
2
- hume and russel reject concept of necessary being
- statemeents about existence are synthetic- based on senses rather than analytic- based n logic
3
- hume suggests thst universe might be a necessarilt eistenct being
- occams razor- simplest answer- less assumptions
- univrse coould be necessarily existent rather than contingent upon unseen necessariyy existent being
4
- russel takes diff approach, claiming existence of universe is unexplainable- it is brute fact
5
- hume argues possibilty of infinite regression- it can reasonablt ask waht caused god
6
- hume argued that nothing can be said about nature of god as a necessarily existent being

Question 4

w

weaknesses of hume and russels criticism
- fallacy of composition- whats true of parts may not be true of the whole
- universe could be a necessarily existent bieng. supported by principle of conservation of matter
- universe could just be brute fact
- why cant there be an infinite regress of contingent beings
- cannot show that the existence of any being is logically necessary
- why just one necessary being

Answer 4

counter arguments to response
- sometimes this is the case. e.g. each 50 states in usa are in the northern hemisphere–> usa is in the northern hemisphere. whats true of the parts is true of the whole
- case for necessarily existent matter is stronger than case for necessarily exist mind. cosmology does not explain why there is something rather than nothing- idea of god does
- most people seek explanation for things- how science operates
- still doesnt explain why there is something rather than nothing. no evidence for existence of infinite past in real world. maths however contains that idea
- hume misunderstands aquinas. aquinas talks about gods metaphysical necessity not a logical one
- occams razor supports idea of a single being

Question 5

3rd way as proof for existence of god
- only deductive arguments can give proof. argument is inductive so cant be certian
2
- argument will never convince atheists

Answer 5

not proof for existence
- most thinfs accepted as true in life are inductive based. stronger evidence more probsble claim is.
- science adopts this when explainng quarks(elementart particles).no direct evidence for but vey strong indirect evidence
- if there is a need for satisfactory explanation of universe cosmological argument provides it
2
- true but not good argument, as no argument can change view of fixed person. for thists 3rd way gives reaosned proof of god as a necessariy uncaused being

Question 6

value in religious faith
-reasonable hypothesis