1 cosmological argument

Question 1

aquinas book

Answer 1

summa theologica

Question 2

aquinas’ argument

Answer 2

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

Question 3

Aquinas’ first way

Answer 3

argument for motion
Everything in motion is moved by something else, derived from Aristotle’s concept of a Prime Mover.

Beings have potential (e.g., wood’s potential to burn) but require an external actualized agent (e.g., fire) to realize it. This chain of movers cannot regress infinitely, leading to a fully actualized Prime Mover (God), who initiates motion without being moved.

Question 4

critique of Aquinas 1st way -Antony Flew

Answer 4

if God was hypothetically the 1st cause, there is no reason to believe he still exists as he may have created and since disappeared.

Question 5

copleston rebutting flew about disappearance of God

Answer 5

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.

Question 6

Aquinas’ 2nd way

Answer 6

• Every effect has a cause, and there cannot be an infinite regress of causes, as Leibniz’s Principle of Sufficient Reason, every event requires a legitimate cause. + infinite regress is logically impossible because nothing can cause itself (“you cannot exist before you exist”). = God, outside time and space, is the uncaused cause.
• The Big Bang lacks a sufficient reason within the universe’s framework, pointing to a transcendent cause.

Question 7

aquinas on infinite regress

Answer 7

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.

Question 8

Leibnz’ principle of sufficient reason

Answer 8

every event must have a ‘sufficient reason’ (legitimate cause) for its creation

Question 9

critique of Aquinas’ 2nd way -Flew and Hume

Answer 9

The idea of an uncaused cause contradicts Aquinas’ premise that everything requires a cause, undermining its empirical basis.
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

Question 10

Hume critique of Aquinas’ 2nd way

Answer 10

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.

Question 11

Counter to Hume about inductive leaps

Answer 11

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

Question 12

Hume critique of whole argument

Answer 12

Fallacy of Composition is applied to the argument.

In the Second Way, Aquinas argues that every event or entity has a cause, and an infinite regress of causes is impossible, necessitating a first uncaused cause (God).
He extends this to claim that the entire universe (a series of caused events) must have a single ultimate cause
Hume argues that just because every individual event in the universe has a cause, it does not logically follow that the entire universe (as a whole) requires a single cause.
Each person has a mother (an individual cause), but it’s fallacious to conclude that the entire human race has a single “collective mother” or that the universe as a whole must have a single cause like God.
Implication: The universe could exist as a series of caused events without needing an ultimate external cause, challenging Aquinas’ conclusion that a transcendent God is necessary.

you cannot rationally take seperate matter as whole class made up of one single cause

Question 13

Aquinas’ 3rd way

Answer 13

Everything in the universe is contingent (could exist or not). If everything were contingent, there could have been a time when nothing existed because cont beings can cease to exist, which is impossible since something exists now.

Therefore, there must be a necessary being—something that must exist and doesn’t depend on anything else—to cause and sustain all contingent things. Aquinas calls this necessary being God. This being is non-contingent and uncaused.
“why is there something rather than nothing”

Question 14

Hick + Kant criticism of the 3rd way x2

Answer 14

-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

Question 15

Dawkins’ criticism

Answer 15

-He claims Aquinas attempts to remedy the infinite regress by simply conjuring up a terminator and giving it a name

Question 16

critique OF Dawkins: reductive, Ed Feser, Aquinas

Answer 16

-reductive, not an arbitrary naming of a terminator but a logical inference based on the principles of Sufficient reason and contingency
-Ed Feser argues Dawkins’ interpretation is flawed and omits necessary details sucha s the actualisation of potential or the theory’s focus on EXISTENCE NOT PROVING GOD EXISTED CHRONOLOGICALLY
-Aquinas acknowledged in Summa Theologica that creation is a principle of faith and there can never be philosophical proof for the beginning of the universe/

Question 17

copleston russel debate

Answer 17

1. copleston expressing he agrees with Aquinas about a necessary transcendent being
2. Russel dismisses this and claims it is futile to ponder about an entity you cannot ever prove exists
3. copleston rebuts this and says youre just refuting claims : ‘you can never be check-mated if you do not sit at the table’ (Russel was not making any points, just merely dismissing the theism)

Question 18

russel critique of cosmo

Answer 18

the universe could jsut exist without explanation - being a “brute fact”/ “fluke”

Question 19

Aq rejects infintie regress distinction

Answer 19

per accidens = accidental, potentially infinite
per se = essential, requiring a series of causal chains.