cosmological argument

Question 1

who formulated the Cosmological argument?

Answer 1

Aquinas

Question 2

what does the cosmological argument do?

Answer 2

these look at features of the world such as cause-and-effect or the contingent nature of all things, and from these observations argue for God as the explanation for why the universe exists.

Question 3

Aquinas 1st way from motion

Answer 3

AQUINAS’ 1st WAY: Motion
PI: It is an a posteriori fact that some things are in motion and some at rest
P2: Nothing can move itself. (move=change!]
CI: Therefore, whatever moves is moved by another mover (its potential is actualized by something in a state of actuality)
P3: Either this series of movers will continue to infinity, or it will end at a first mover
P4: It is not possible to have an infinite series of movers
C2: Therefore, there is a first mover, and this we call God

Question 4

criticisms of the argument from motion

Answer 4

1. It doesn’t give the God of Classical Theism. Answer: it gets us close enough to show that belief in God is rational: Singular & unchanging, timeless, immaterial, non-spatial
2. Aquinas is wrong to say that something can only be made F by something that is actually F(Kenny) i.e. you need a mover to move something. Answer: We only need something with the power to make something can ultimately account for something becoming E 3. It relies on outdated science (concept of purpose).

Question 5

aquinas’ second way- cause

Answer 5

AQUINAS’ 2nd WAY: Cause
PI: It is an a posteriori fact that everything which occurs has an efficient cause
P2: Nothing can cause itself.
Ci: Therefore, whatever is caused to occur is caused to occur by an efficient cause.
P3: There cannot be an infinite series of efficient causes.
P4: If there were no first cause, there would be no subsequent causes.
P5: As series of causes requires an uncaused cause
C2: Therefore, there is an uncaused cause and this we call God (NB: cause in esse not in fieri)

Question 6

criticism 1 of argument from cause

Answer 6

Hume against causality: ‘Everything has a cause’ = if A causes B, then A must cause B. This can’t be an
a priori truth (because a priori truths are definitions or tautologies). It can’t be an a posteriori truth (as I never empirically witness causality itself). Conclusion 1: Causality is a habit of thought. Conclusion
2: Causality cannot be used to argue for God’s existence. Response to Hume: his theory of constant conjunction can’t differentiate between cause and correlation.

Question 7

argument 2 of argument from cause

Answer 7

fallacy of composition wrongly assumes that what can be said of the parts, can be said of the whole. The cosmological arguments assume that just because parts of the universe need to be explained in terms of their causes, the whole universe needs to be explained in these terms. Response: A row of strawberries is nothing but a row of strawberries. We have to ask: what caused the row of strawberries to come into existence? We need a sufficient reason to explain the universe’s existence. Also, not every argument from the part to the whole is fallacious. ‘the bricks are, the wall is red’

Question 8

aquinas 3rd way- contingency

Answer 8

AQUINAS’ 3rd WAY: Contingency
PI: ‘We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be’ (contingent beings)
P2: Contingent beings do not always exist (Whatever is contingent is generated and corrupted. Whatever is generated and corrupted does not always exist)
P3: If everything were contingent, then at some point nothing would have existed
P4: If at some point nothing were in existence, nothing would be in existence now
P5: Things are in existence now
C. Therefore, not all beings are contingent; at least some necessary being exists. We call this God.

Question 9

copleston-russel in relation to aquinas 3rd way

Answer 9

1.Bertrain Russell: ‘necessity’ belongs to analytic statements only because they can be true within themselves. It can’t be used in synthetic statements (about things that exist in reality) Hume’s Fork. A necessary being is a meaningless statement. Response: Copleston ‘if there is a contingent being then there is a Necessary Being’ is a hypothetical statement. A ‘contingent being’ is established by experience.
If we can show there is a contingent being, then for the statement to be true, there has to be a necessary being. Therefore, we can talk about a necessary being without it being illogical.

Question 10

argument from sufficient reason- and why it upholds

Answer 10

ds a sufficient reason