Cosmological Argument Flashcards
Summarize an inductive and a posteriori argument
A posteriori- Based on experience
Inductive-Based on generalisations
Which of Aquinas’ 3 ways relate to the cosmological argument
His first three ways:
1. Motion and Change
2.Cause and Effect
3. Contingency and Necessity
Briefly describe the reasoning of the First way
Everything that is in a state of motion or change has a cause for being in that state. Aquinas was interested in the potentiality, or the state of being able to become something, and actuality, when this state is achieved. Tracing this sequence of cause and effect back, because Aquinas believed an infinte regression was impossible, then God must have been the first cause, similar to Aristotles prime mover and the 40 concentric rings of star
Briefly describe the reasoning of the Second way
This is extremely similar to the first way but with the idea of cause and effect, rather than motion and change. Every effect must have a cause, an activity that bought it about. Aristotle and Aquinas called this the efficient cause. Once again, the idea of infinite regress is, according to Aquinas, impossible, so an effect must exist without an efficient cause, that thing being God. This is often called the uncaused causer argument.
Briefly explain the reasoning of the Third way.
Aquinas argued that everything we see existing had a cause for that existence; it was contingent on something else. For example, we are contingent on our parents.For Aquinas, everything in our world is contingent on something else for its existence, so if everything is contingent on everything then there would be nothing in our world. However, the fact that there is something rather than nothing leads Aquinas to the conclusion that there is a being that is not contingent on anything else, able to cause other beings, that being being God.
How is the Kalam cosmological argument different form Aquinas’ one
The Kalam arguement deals with the issues of time and infinity, concluding that since the Universe began at a time, then the creator must be something out of time.
Who is the majoor western proponent of the Kalam cosmological argument.
William Lane Craig
How does Aquinas’ use of Aristotelian causation in the cosmological argument compare to Lane Craig’s version of the argument?
Aquinas’ cosmological argument, as formulated in the Five Ways, relies on Aristotelian causation, which posits that every event or object has a cause. Lane Craig’s version of the argument, on the other hand, relies on the Kalam cosmological argument, which asserts that the universe had a beginning and therefore requires a cause. Lane Craig’s version also includes a defense of the principle of sufficient reason, which Aquinas did not explicitly address.
What criticisms of Aquinas’ cosmological argument did David Hume make in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion?
It relies on an unjustified assumption that every event or object must have a cause. Hume also questioned the ability of the cosmological argument to establish the existence of a single, necessary cause of the universe.
How does Lane Craig address Hume’s objection to the principle of sufficient reason in the cosmological argument?
Lane Craig responds to Hume’s objection to the principle of sufficient reason by arguing that it is a necessary presupposition for rational inquiry and that it is grounded in our experience of the world. He also points out that Hume’s skepticism about causation does not necessarily undermine the cosmological argument.
What role does the concept of contingency play in Aquinas’ cosmological argument, and how does Lane Craig’s version differ?
The concept of contingency plays a central role in Aquinas’ cosmological argument, as he argues that every contingent object or event must ultimately be caused by a necessary being. Lane Craig’s version of the argument also relies on the concept of contingency, but he formulates it in terms of the universe having a beginning and therefore requiring a cause.
In what ways does David Hume’s empiricist philosophy challenge the premises of the cosmological argument?
Hume’s empiricist philosophy challenges the premises of the cosmological argument by questioning our ability to know that every event or object must have a cause. Hume argues that causation is not directly observable and that we can only infer causal relationships based on past experience. This challenges the notion that we can know with certainty that the universe must have a cause.
Which two people held a radio debate in 1948, discussing the cosmological theory for Gods existence.
Bertrand Russel and Father Coplestone.
Coplestone argued that objective morality is derived from God and that tehre must be cause for the universe outside of the universe.
Russel argues that this is a fallacy of composition, as it cannot be said that becuase evry part of the universe has a cause, the entire thing has a cause, and that god is not necessary for an independant standard of morality.
How does Lane Craig respond to Hume’s argument that the universe could be infinite in time?
Lane Craig responds to Hume’s argument that the universe could be infinite in time by pointing out that recent scientific evidence strongly suggests that the universe had a beginning. He also argues that an infinite regress of causes is logically impossible, and therefore the universe must have a first cause and a beginning, as a singularity (Big bang theory)
How does Aquinas’ concept of “esse” relate to the cosmological argument, and how does Lane Craig interpret this concept?
Aquinas’ concept of “esse” refers to the act of existence itself, and he argues that everything that exists must receive its existence from a necessary being. Lane Craig interprets this concept in a slightly different way, arguing that the universe has a “contingent actualizer” that continually sustains its existence.
