Cosmological argument Flashcards
difference between aquinas’ first and third way
FIRST way
- God is a CHANGER
- God is the TEMPORAL first cause → removed from creation
THIRD way
- God is a CREATOR
- God is a SUSTAINER → without God the world ceases to exist, he is involved
Aquinas’ first way summary
- COSMOLOGICAL argument → God is a CREATOR
- A POSTERIORI argument as it uses observations as evidence → INDUCTIVE argument with a PROBABLE conclusion
‘It is evident to our senses’ - Refers to MOTION → changing (being in one state and becoming another, ie a tree having no leaves and then growing them back in a cycle)
- POTENTIALITY → ACTUALITY
- Uses the REJECTION OF INFINITE REGRESS to argue that this chain of movers had a beginning, which Aquinas deduces is GOD
- Assumes time is LINEAR, with a POTENTIAL INFINITY
part 1 of aquinas first way –> potentiality and actually
- Aquinas comments on how it is ‘evident to our senses’ that ‘whatever is in motion is put into motion by another’ → he makes OBSERVATIONS about CHANGES in the world he can see
- He describes it as POTENTIALITY vs ACTUALITY → when something moves from the two, it has changed it state and becomes something new, not physically moving
- He uses the example of wood and fire. In the state of wood it has POTENTIALITY and when it is MOVED it becomes fire in its state of ACTUALITY
part 2 of the first way –> the mover and the moved
- He also comments that is not possible for something to ‘move’ itself, and this must be completed by an external mover, which exists as a separate entity
- Something cannot be potentially cold and actually hot simultaneously → ‘it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality’
- The mover is in actuality and the moved is in potentiality → cannot be both
part 3 of the first way –> the problem of infinity
- The chain of movers and the moved cannot go on for infinity because ‘there would be no first mover’
- The problem of ABSOLUTE INFINITY is that time would be presented as cyclical, with no defined START NOR END → Aquinas dismisses absolute infinity through the REJECTION OF INFINITE REGRESS, which uses evidence to reject it
- He instead assumes time is LINEAR and accepts POTENTIAL INFINITY, which supports the idea of a FIRST MOVER
rejection of infinte regress
why can it be rejected
- None of the items in the world are infinite → if nothing in the chain is infinite, the chain cannot be infinite
- If the chain was actually infinite, there would be no change/finitity, but we can observe it
- Aquinas believed in God, so the RoIR supports his own Christian views → potential infinity supports the idea of a start point in time (God), who is an unmoved mover
- Nothing else could be this mover, as it needs to be separate and removed from the chain
first way conclusion
‘Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put into motion by no other’
- If you reject infinite regress, the chain of movers must have a FIRST mover
- There is no movement without the first, so without it the chain would not exist but through observation we know it does
- The beginning of the chain, the first mover, must be UNMOVED itself in order to truly be the beginning
- It must also be REMOVED from the rest of the chain as its creator
- The only being with such capabilities, to have already REACHED ITS STATE OF ACTUALITY…
‘Everyone understands this to be..
GOD’ !!
‘aquinas first way proves god exist’
for
- Evidence used - A posteriori argument
- Simplistic argument → William of Occam, more probable arguments tend to be the simplest
against
- Can be multiple first movers → is the finite chain linear, like time??
- Concludes the God of religion is the God of philosophy: do not match up with qualities (omnibenevolent versus removed and uncaring’
- Impersonal force is described leading to Deism → this is NOT the God of religion
summary of aquinas third way
- We know everything is contingent through observation.
- At some point there was nothing. Nothing originates from nothing so there must be a Necessary being.
- Every contingency is caused by another. This chain is finite (REJECTION OF IR) so there must be a Necessary being that created contingencies.
- This necessary being is God.
- A POSTERIORi
- INDUCTIVE
- PROBABLE conclusion, through observation
- COSMOLOGICAL
part 1 of aquinas 3rd way –> Necessity vs contingency
- NECESSITY: could not not be
- CONTINGENCY: could be or could not be as it depends on something else (referred to as a possibility)
- It is possible for things to not be and be, so everything in the natural world is CONTINGENT
- Deduced through OBSERVATIONS (people, nature etc) that things are ‘found to be generated and to be corrupted’ (impermanent)
- By this logic, Aquinas deduces that if ‘everything’ can be and cannot be, ‘then at one time there was nothing’
- Nothing is infinite as the universe is contingent, so at some point the universe did not exist
- However, if there was nothing at some point, there would be nothing at all, ‘and thus even now nothing would be in existence-which is absurd’
- EX NIHILO NIHIL FIT → from nothing nothing comes, something is needed to create
- Aquinas uses REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM to strengthen his argument → denounce other outcomes to strengthen his own
- Therefore, he concludes ‘not all beings are merely possible’ and there must be ‘the existence of which is Necessary’
part 2 of aquinas’ third way –> the necessary being
- Aquinas argues that ‘every necessary thing has its necessity caused by another, or not’
- He does not refer to the Necessary being, but instead the chain of causation
- Ie. concerning contingent being me, my parents are necessary for my creation but are contingencies themselves → all these beings are still contingencies, but are necessary for the chain of causation to continue
- Referring to this chain, he talks about how it cannot be infinite ‘proved in regard to efficient causes’, in reference to the FIRST WAY, and the Rejection of Infinite regress
- The chain of causation, much like the chain of movers cannot be infinite as
- Nothing in the chain is infinite
If it were infinite there would be no change observed, but there is - Therefore, he deduces - much like the first MOVER - there is a FIRST CAUSE
This being is UNCAUSED itself and exists in its own Necessity → the Necessary being Cannot not be → not contingent - No reliance on anything to provide its causation or necessity, removed entity → beginning of the chain
- Aquinas concludes that the uncaused cause, the one and only - Necessary being that could not not exist, that created all contingencies (providing their own necessity) - and therefore the universe - must be… ‘this all men speak of as God’
kalams design argument
- God’s existence or is the material universe eternal
- Whatever exists has a cause –> Do not observe spontaneous creation
- Observation and scientific evidence supports this premise
Universe exists
- Atheists say the universe has always been there
- 2nd thermodynamics law: universe is running out of usable energy → if always existing, would run out already but still exists
- 2nd thermodynamics law points to a definite universe with a beginning
- Einstein theory of relativity
- Georges Lemaitre and Alexander Friedmann → universe is expanding
- Hubble: red shift, empirical evidence of universe expansions and a start from a single point in the finite past
- Leading cosmologists → Borde, Guth and Vilenkin: any universe that has been expanding throughout history cannot be eternal in the past and have an absolute beginning (applies to the multiverse)
Universe has a cause
- Both premises are proven to be true through empirical evidence and observation → Therefore the conclusion must be true
- The universe cannot cause itself → cause needs to be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, uncaused and powerful → THIS IS GOD
- Cosmological argument shows it is reasonable to say God does exists
Similarities between kalam and aquinas’ design argument
- God created the world and is the uncaused cause
- God’s creation of the world is evident through observation
- Everything that exists has a cause
There cannot be actual infinity, but only potential infinity where the universe starts from a point
differences between kalam and aquinas’ design argument
- Kalam: Uses proven scientific data collected rather than simple observation using the senses to make the argument
- Aquinas: focuses on the contingency of all things rather than the causality → K:God can be the first cause without being the Necessary being
the temporal first cause
Temporal = in time
- Way to understand God in the cosmological argument is to see God as being at the beginning the universe and starting everything off
- William Craig: we see the universe as a series of events with God positioned right at the very beginning
One idea of God is that God is constantly there and present, sustaining the world → if the sustainer God stopped existing, we would no longer exist
- The universe cannot continue without God constantly sustaining it
- However, the idea of God being the temporal first cause aligns with DEISM, not religion → the God of philosophy is not the God of Jerusalem
