Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

metaphysics of god > cosmological argument > Flashcards

cosmological argument Flashcards

1
Q

cosmological arguments

A
  • the Kalam argument
  • Aquinas’ first way (motion)
  • Aquinas’ second way (a temporal causation)
  • Aquinas’ third way (contingency)
  • Leibniz’s argument from the principle of sufficient reason
  • Descartes’ argument
  • is a posteriori
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

the Kalam argument

A
  1. the universe is composed of temporal phenomena (temporal phenomena are things that occur and exist in time - that are preceded by other temporal phenomena)
  2. an infinite regress of temporal phenomena is impossible
  3. therefore, the universe must have a beginning
  4. everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence
  5. therefore, there is a cause of the existence of the universe
    - to conclude that the cause is God requires further premises)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

actual infinites (Kalam argument)

A
  • why think that an infinite regress of temporal phenomena is impossible
  • infinity is not a very large number - it goes beyond that
  • an infinite regress of temporal phenomena never has a starting point
  • the concept of infinity makes sense, but does an ‘actual’ infinity
  • an actual infinity creates paradoxes - if the universe is infinitely old, is is not getting older as time passes; if the universe if infinitely old, it could never have reached the present since an infinite time can’t pass
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

temporal and sustaining causes

A
  • temporal cause: brings about its effect after it (the effect follows the cause in time) and the effect can continue after the cause ceases
  • sustaining cause: brings about its effect continuously (rather than at a single point in time), and the effect depends on the continued existence and operation of the cause
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Aquinas’ second way

A
  • we find, in the world, (sustaining) causes and effects
  • nothing can be the cause of itself (to do so, it would have to have the power to sustain its own existence, but for that it would already have to exist)
  • (sustaining) causes follow in (logical) order: the first casually sustains the second, which causally sustains the third, etc
  • if you remove a cause, you remove its effect
  • therefore, if there is no first cause, there will be no other causes
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Aquinas’ second way in premises

A
  1. if there is an infinite regress of causes, there is no first cause
  2. therefore, given that there are (sustaining) causes, there cannot be an infinite regress of causes
  3. therefore, there must be a first cause, which is not itself caused
  4. god is the first cause
  5. therefore, god exists
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Aquinas’ first way

A
  • some things in the world undergo change
  • whatever changes is changed by something, i.e., change is caused
  • the cause must be something else
  • if this chain goes on infinitely, then there is no first mover
  • if there is no first mover, then there is no other mover, and so nothing would be in motion
  • but things are in motion
  • therefore, there must be a first mover
  • the first mover is God
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Aquinas’ first way in premises

A
  1. to remove a cause is to remove its effect
  2. therefore, if there is no first cause of change, then there are no other causes of change, and so nothing changes
  3. therefore, there must be a first cause of change, i.e., something that causes change but is not itself changed
  4. the first cause of change is god
  5. therefore, god exists
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

necessary and contingent existence

A
  • contingent: something exists contingently if it is possible for it to exist and for it not to exist
  • necessary: something exists necessarily if it must exist, i.e., if it is impossible for it not to exist
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Aquinas’ third way

A
  • everything that exists contingently did not exist at some point
  • if everything exists contingently, then at some point nothing existed
  • if nothing existed, then nothing could begin to exist
  • but since things did begin to exist, there was never nothing in existence
  • therefore, there must be something that does not exist contingently, but that exists necessarily
  • this necessary being is God
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Aquinas’ third way in premises

A
  1. things in the universe contingently
  2. if it is possible for something not to exist, then at some time, it does not exist
  3. if everything exists contingently, then it is possible that at some time, there was nothing in existence
  4. if at some time, nothing was in existence, nothing could begin to exist
  5. since things do exist, there was never nothing in existence
  6. therefore, there is something that does not exist contingently, but must exist
  7. this necessary being is god
  8. god exists
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Leibniz’s argument from contingent existence

A
  • the principle of sufficient reason: every true fact has an explanation that provides a sufficient reason for why things are as they are and not otherwise
  • there are two kinds of truth: truths of reason (are necessary) and truths of fact (are contingent)
  • therefore, when we give explanations of this sort we move no nearer to the goal of completely explaining contingencies
  • the sequence of contingent facts does not contain the sufficient reason for any contingent fact
  • therefore, to provide a sufficient reason for any contingent fact we must look outside the sequence of contingent fact
  • therefore, the sufficient reason for contingent facts must be in a necessary substance
  • this necessary substance is god
  • this necessary substance is a sufficient reason for all this detail, which is interconnected throughout
  • so there is only one god and this god is sufficient
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Leibniz’s argument from contingent existence in premises

A
  1. principle of sufficient reason - every fact has a sufficient reason
  2. necessary facts are self-explaining
  3. contingent facts must (ultimately) be explained by necessary facts (otherwise an infinite regress is generated)
  4. therefore, there is something necessary that is a sufficient explanation of contingent things
  5. that thing is god
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Descartes’ argument

A
  1. either I cause myself, I am uncaused, or caused by another
  2. if I cause my own existence, I would give myself all perfections
  3. I do not have all perfections, so I am not the cause of my own existence
  4. I exist through time, so I am not uncaused
  5. therefore, I am caused by another
  6. either what caused me us the cause of its own existence or its existence is caused by another cause
  7. if the existence is caused by another cause, then the point repeats: this second cause is in turn either the cause of its own existence or its existence is caused by another cause
  8. there cannot be an infinite sequence of causes
  9. therefore, some cause must be the cause of its own existence
  10. that cause is god
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

the possibility of an infinite series (objection)

A
  • cosmological arguments assume something along the lines of ‘there can’t be an infinite chain of causes’ (except the cosmological arguments from contingency).
  • but we can respond by rejecting this claim
  • why must there be a first cause?
  • perhaps there is just be an infinite chain of causes stretching back forever
  • response: an infinite chain of causes would mean an infinite amount of time has passed prior to the present moment, if an infinite amount of time has passed, then the universe can’t get any older, but the universe is getting older; therefore an infinite amount of time has not passed and therefore there is not an infinite chain of causes
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Hume’s objection to the ‘causal principle’

A
  • another assumption (or premise) of many of the cosmological arguments above (not so much the contingency ones) is ‘everything has a cause’
  • but Hume’s fork can be used to question this claim that ‘everything has a cause’: relation of ideas - ‘everything has a cause’ is not a relation of ideas because we can conceive of something without a cause and matter of fact - ‘everything has a cause’ cannot be known as a matter of fact either, as we never actually experience causation, we just see event A happen and then event B happen after and even if we see B follow A a million times, we never experience A causing B, just the ‘constant conjunction’ of A and B.
  • further, in the specific case of the creation of the universe, we only ever experience event B (i.e. the continued existence of the universe) and never what came before (i.e. the thing that caused the universe to exist)
  • this all casts doubt on the premise of cosmological arguments that ‘everything has a cause’
17
Q

the fallacy of composition (Russell)

A
  • Russell argues that cosmological arguments fall foul of the fallacy of composition
  • the fallacy of composition is an invalid inference that because parts of something have a certain property, the entire thing must also have this property
  • we can raise a similar objection to Hume’s above: just because everything within the universe has a cause, doesn’t guarantee that the universe itself has a cause
  • or, to apply it to Leibniz’s cosmological argument: just because everything within the universe requires sufficient reason to explain its existence, doesn’t mean the universe itself requires sufficient reason to explain its existence
  • reply: everything within the universe exists contingently and if everything within the universe didn’t exist, then the universe itself wouldn’t exist either (because that’s all the universe is: the collection of things that make it up), so the universe itself exists contingently, not just the stuff within it
    and so the universe itself requires sufficient reason to explain its existence
18
Q

the impossibility of a necessary being (Hume and Russell)

A
  • Aquinas’ first and second ways, and the Kalam argument only show that there is a first cause
  • but they don’t show that this first cause is God
  • even if we accept that there was a first cause, it doesn’t necessarily follow that God exists – much less the specific being described in the concept of God
  • even if the cosmological argument is sound, it doesn’t necessarily follow that God exists
  • reply: this objection doesn’t work so well against Descartes’ version because he specifically reasons that there is a first cause and that this first cause is an omnipotent and omniscient God; similarly, you could argue that any being that exists necessarily (such as follows from Aquinas’ third way and Leibniz’s cosmological argument) would be God
19
Q

objection against the Kalam argument - the causal principle

A
  • why think that everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence - because if we deny this, it seems that something can come from nothing
  • Hume: these claims are not analytic, so are not certain; experience supports them, but cannot show that they hold universally
  • could the existence of the universe be uncaused - perhaps these claims do not apply in this unusual case, we have no relevant experience
  • reply: perhaps the Kalam argument fails as a deduction, but still provides good reason to think God exists
20
Q

objection against the kalam - the possibility of an infinite series

A
  • an objector can agree with this point: ‘an infinite regress of temporal phenomena is impossible’
  • after all, modern science says that the universe is 14 billion years old
  • time started with the big bang, so there is no infinite regress
  • reply: if the big bang had a cause there would still be an infinite series of causes, which would generate the same problems
  • objection from Hume: it is not analytically true that an infinite regression is impossible
  • reply: Hume has not solved the paradoxes of infinity, so reasonable to believe it is impossible
  • response: the problem is with the way we think about infinity, we need a better understanding of it
21
Q

why god (Aquinas’ second way)

A
  • the first cause not as a first cause in time, but ‘ontologically’ first - not sustained by anything else
  • is the first cause god
  • reply: what else could it be - natural things are causally dependent, not self sufficient, in their existence; our concept of god includes the idea that god is self sufficient
22
Q

objection against Aquinas’ first way - the causal principle

A
  • is it true that everything has a cause
  • Hume: it is not analytic, so it is not certain, experience supports it but cannot show that it holds universally
  • could the existence of things be uncaused: e.g. could fundamental physical processes not be sustained by anything else, but be ‘brute’ facts; or could sustaining causes be replaced by highly complex and rapid temporal causes
23
Q

objection against Aquinas’ first way - the possibility of an infinite series

A
  • Aquinas: there cannot be an infinite series of causes
  • objection: we can agree, we know this universe began just under 14 billion years ago
  • response: this reply assumes Aquinas is talking about temporal causes, not sustaining causes (the universe is not self sustaining)
  • that the universe had a beginning shows that it was not always actual, something had to cause the big bang
24
Q

objection against Aquinas’ third way - the causal principle

A
  • is it true that if nothing once existed, nothing could later come into existence, does everything have a cause
    Hume:
  • the claims ‘something cannot come out of nothing’, and ‘everything has a cause’ are not analytic, so are not certain
  • experience supports them, but cannot show that they hold universally
25
Q

objection against Aquinas’ third way - contingent existence

A
  • just because it is possible for a contingent thing to cease to exist does not mean that every contingent thing at some point does not exist
  • not everything that is possible actually occurs
  • reply: but if something with contingent existence always existed, we would need a very special explanation
26
Q

objection against Aquinas’ third way - a series of contingent things

A
  • why cannot it be that although any individual thing has not existed at some time, there had always been something in existence
  • reply : this presupposes an infinite sequence of contingent things, but actual infinites are paradoxical - would also require something necessary
27
Q

objection against Leibniz - the fallacy of composition

A
  • Russell: of any particular thing, we can ask what explains it, but we cannot apply this to the universe as a whole
  • the argument commits fallacy of composition - an inference that because the parts have some property, the whole has the property, e.g., each tissue is thin so the box of tissues is thin
  • reply: inferring from parts to whole does not always commit the fallacy of composition - each part of my desk is wooden, so my desk is wooden - each thing in the universe exists contingently so the universe exists contingently
28
Q

objection against Leibniz - is the universe contingent

A
  • Hume: why think god is the necessary being, why not matter/energy
  • a fundamental law of physics is the conservation of energy
  • reply: there is no reason to think that this applies to the beginning of the universe - the big bang theory suggests the opposite (matter/energy comes into existence), so the the universe is contingent
29
Q

objection against Leibniz - explanation

A
  • (from Hume) we cannot know that every contingent being has, or requires, an explanation
  • just as some things may be uncaused, they may also be inexplicable
  • reply: if true, this shows that we cannot prove hod’s existence by deduction - but the argument still works as inference to the best explanation
30
Q

objection against Leibniz - necessary existence

A
  • Hume/Russell: the concept of a being that necessarily exists is problematic - nothing that is distinctly conceivable implies a contradiction, whatever we conceive as existence, we can also conceive as non existence; therefore, there is no being who non existence implies a contradiction
  • reply: Hume and Russell are right that we cannot say that ‘the sentence ‘god exists’ is necessarily true’ - but this is not relevant
  • discussion of the ontological argument shows that ‘if god exists, god exists necessarily’ is coherent - it does not show that god exists, but that the concept of a being that necessarily exists is coherent
  • ‘god exists necessarily’ tells us what kind of existence god has if god exists
31
Q

objection against Descartes - continued existence does not require a cause

A
  • my continual existence does not require a cause because nothing changes
  • reply: this misunderstands both causation and continued existence
  • continued existence is the result of whatever keeps one alive
32
Q

objection against Descartes - the causal principle

A
  • Descartes assumes that everything has a cause - is this true
  • Hume: it is not analytic, so it is not certain; experience supports it, but cannot show that it hold universally
  • could my existence be uncaused - ‘something cannot come from nothing’ is also not analytic
33
Q

necessary and contingent existence

A
  • contingent - something exists contingently if it is possible for it to exist and for it not to exist
  • necessary - something exists necessarily if it must exist, i.e., if it is impossible for it not to exist

metaphysics of god (6 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions