cosmological argument Flashcards
aquinas book
summa theologica
aquinas’ argument
a posteriori (based on experience), empirical (based on observation) and inductive (infers from evidence the most probable solution).
doesnt seek to prove the existence of a Christian God but just the existence of a transcendent being
Aquinas’ first way
argument for motion
-derives from the Aristotelian argument for a prime mover, beings are in a potential state and subconsciously move to actualise themselves in order to fulfill their telos as they are attracted to the prime mover who is fully actualised.
-aquinas applies this and argues nothing can actualise its own potential EG wood has the potential to burn, but needs a fire (an external agent) to burn (beings do not move due to will but as they are attracted to a fully actualised, transcendent being; God.)
critique of Aquinas 1st way -Antony Flew
if God was hypothetically the 1st cause, there is no reason to believe he still exists as he may have created and since disappeared.
copleston rebutting flew about disappearance of God
Copleston distinguishes between two types of causes:
in fieri - (a first cause who has no obligations/connections with the created matter (eg a parent))
in esse - (a cause that must be present to sustain its creation)
=God is the sustainer and is responsible for motion in the world as all beings are attracted to God’s actualisation. the world would cease to move if God left.
Aquinas’ 2nd way
argument for causation
‘every first cause is caused by something else’ - there cannot be an infinite regress in which a series of causes take place without a first cause.
-LEIBNZ’ PRINCIPLE OF SUFFICIENT REASON
=you cannot exist before you exist
=> the big bang theory is dismissed as it has no sufficient reason for the event.
… Aquinas proposes the transcendent God who operates outside the norms of this universe and is not bound to time or space.
aquinas on infinite regress
you cannot exist before you exist
it is merely a theoretical concept which cannot be practically applicated in reality, as this would require the matter to move itself - involving simultaneously moving and being moved.
Leibnz’ principle of sufficient reason
every event must have a ‘sufficient reason’ (legitimate cause) for its creation
critique of Aquinas’ 2nd way -Flew and Hume
the theory of an uncaused cause is self contradictory to Aquinas’ 2nd way. this also negates the empirically evidenced nature of Aquinas’ arguments as it posits the idea that ONLY god requires no cause.
Hume agrees and places the possibility of a self-caused God as likely as a self-caused universe.
=whilst the contradiction is solved by a placement of this transcendent being outside of space and time, it nonetheless leaves flaws in Aquinas’ theory
Hume critique of Aquinas’ 2nd way
Aquinas takes too large of a leap from the idea of a first cause of the universe to the assumption that this cause must be a ‘god’. hume describes this as an ‘inductive leap’ and questions why this God must be the God of Classical Theism (not polytheistic).
=lacks rationality and justification.
Counter to Hume about inductive leaps
can be dismantled by the principle of Ockham’s Razar
=formulates from empirical context that the simplest answer is usually most likely to be true
- meaning if God is sufficient explanation, philosophers dont need to postulate further
Hume critique of whole argument
Fallacy of Composition is applied to the argument.
-just because one effect in a chain has a cause, this one cause cannot necessarily apply to a whole series of effects.
-example: while every man who exists must have a mother, when applying the 1st and 2nd way, this would mean every man in the human race would have a ‘collective mother’ of sorts.
=there does not necessarily need to be an ultimate cause of the universe.
you cannot rationally take seperate matter as whole class made up of one single causeA
Aquinas’ 3rd way
argument from contingency
-since all beings in the universe are contingent (can live or die without consequence) = how is there something rather than nothing?
-if all things exist contingently, does that mean there was a time when nothing existed (which we know to be wrong)
-GOD - a necessary being who MUST exist in order to explain how all non-contingent beings have come into existence
-and does not require a cause.
Hick + Kant criticism of the 3rd way x2
-HICK: the argument is does not use empirical evidence and is not truly a posteriori therefore it is a priori (based on philosophical logic). this cannot truly prove the existence of God as it is only based on philosophical reason - not factual evidence.
-KANT: the idea of God remains a concept as no reality has or can be proven
Dawkins’ criticism x2
-Aquinas’ three ways also rely on an infinite regress to prove the existence of God
-He claims Aquinas attempts to remedy this by simply conjuring up a terminator and giving it a name
