Cosmological argument Flashcards
Kalam cosmological argument
P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
P2: The universe began to exist.
C: The universe has a cause (God).
What characteristics did William Lane Craig add to the cause?
Uncaused, changeless, timeless (because if God created time, he should not be bound by the laws of time), immaterial, personal.
Aquinas’ first way (argument from motion)
P1: Things in the world are in motion.
P2: Whatever is moved is moved by another thing.
P3: Movement is a reduction from potentiality to actuality.
P4: Nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality except something already in actuality.
P5: The same thing cannot be both potentially and actually something.
P6: Therefore a thing cannot move itself.
P7: Therefore what is moved must be moved by another.
P8: There cannot be an infinite regress otherwise nothing will have moved in the first place.
C: Therefore, there must be an unmoved mover, which is God.
Aquinas’ second way (argument from atemporal causation)
P1: Everything has an efficient cause.
P2: No efficient cause can be its own cause as it would have to exist before itself.
P3: You cannot have an infinite number of efficient causes as if there was no efficient cause, there would be no subsequent effects. This is false.
C: Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause, which is what people call ‘God’.
Aquinas’ third way (argument from contingency)
P1: Everything in the world is contingent (comes into existence and passes out of existence).
P2: If this is so, given infinite time, at some point everything would pass out of existence.
P3: If there was once nothing, nothing new could come from it and there would be nothing now. This is false.
P4: Therefore, there must be at least one necessary being which causes and sustains contingent beings.
C: This is what people call God.
Descartes’ argument based on his continuing existence
P1: The cause of my existence as a rational being with and idea of a perfect God could be a) myself, b) I have always existed, c) my parents or d) God.
P2: I cannot have caused myself to exist as I have an idea of a perfect being. Applying the causal principle, the idea of a perfect being must come from a perfect being. I am not perfect being, therefore I am not my own cause.
P3: Neither have I always existed as I would be aware of this.
P4: My parents may be the cause of my physical existence, but not of me as a conscious being with an idea of a perfect God.
C: (by elimination) Only God could have created me.
Leibniz’s argument from the principle of sufficient reason (contingency)
P1: Every fact/event in the world needs a sufficient reason (complete explanation)
P2: Necessary truths (such as 2+2=4) are self-evident, they are known innately; it would be contradictory to deny them and therefore they need to further explanation.
P3: Contingent truths (such as my existence or the existence of the universe) need further explanation.
P4: They may be explained using other contingent truths but if we continue to explain things using further contingent truths, ultimately there is no explanation of anything that exists.
C: Therefore, the sufficient reason for every fact/event in the world must be a necessary substance which we call God.
Issue - the possibility of an infinite cause
Several forms of the cosmological argument (Kalam argument, Aquinas’ first second and third ways and Leibniz’s argument) rely on the impossibility of an infinite regress. However, they may be wrong. Just because our finite minds cannot understand the concept of infinity, that does not mean it cannot exist. Furthermore, Hume argues that it is incoherent to argue that everything must have a cause, but God is the exception. If God also has a cause then we still have an infinite regress. Therefore, the cosmological argument fails as it rests on a weak principle that infinite regress is impossible.
Issue - Hume’s objection to the causal principle
The causal principle states that every event must have a cause. This principle is the backbone of the cosmological argument. Hume, however, questions whether every event has to have a cause. We learnt to associate an effect with a cause through experience/ constant conjunction (e.g. observing that a ball doesn’t move unless someone kicks it). The issue is that we are looking at a unique case when trying to understand the universe, so how can we be sure that the universe also has a cause? According to Hume, there is no evidence that the universe needs to have a cause and thus, the cosmological argument falls apart.
Issue - the argument commits the fallacy of composition (Russell)
Russell argues that the cosmological argument commits the fallacy of composition by likening the universe to things within it. He accepts that things in the universe need an explanation which science can give, but that doesn’t mean that the universe also needs such an explanation. Paul Edwards gave an example of Canadians in New York; we can give a reason why each one is there, but can’t give a reason why the whole group is there. Similarly, Russell argues that ‘just because all humans have a mother, does not mean that the human race has a mother’. Therefore, Russell would argue that the cosmological argument fails.
Issue - the impossibility of a necessary being
Arguments from contingency (e.g. Leibniz’s argument and Aquinas’ 3rd way) conclude that there must be a necessary being who caused contingent beings and things. However, Hume (and later Russell) argued that ‘necessary’ only relates to things that have to be that way (e.g. a triangle having 3 sides) and it would be a contradiction to deny such things. Hume then argued that ‘there is no being whose non-existence implies a contradiction’ - therefore, the idea of a necessary being is non-sensical.
