Cosmological argument

Question 1

Cosmological argument?

Answer 1

uses inductive proofs to argue for God’s existence, leading to conclusions that represent one of several possibilites

Question 2

Is it aposteriori or aporiori?

Answer 2

aposteriori
which means it arrives at conclusions based on the evaluation of empirical data
empirical data consists of observations of the cosmos and its phenomena, which are used to support the argument’s conclusion

Question 3

The first way?
motion or change

Answer 3

Aquinas refers to the transition from potentality to actuality, noting that things in motion require a mover to instigate that movement
he argues that an infinite regression of movers is impossible, leading to the conclusion that there must be a first mover, which is itself unmoved by anything else
the first mover is referred to as the prime or unmoved mover

Question 4

Second way?

Answer 4

argument is concerned of how things come into existence rather than their changing states
asserts that everything that exists has an efficient cause, which is something that brings another thing into being - like a mother giving birth to her child
nothing can cause itself an infinite regression of causes is impossible; there must be an uncaused first causer
the prime mover or uncaused causer does not necessarily need to be the God of classical theism
( refers to his qualities )
the argument merely establishes the god of existence of an initial uncaused cause or unmoved mover

Question 5

Third way: contingency and necessity?

Answer 5

Contingent beings depend on something else for their existence while necessary beings exist independently and cannot cease to exist
Involves apriori approach, focusing on the nature of existence rather than empirical knowledge
he argued that if everything were contingent, nothing would exist, as all contingent beings require a cause

Question 6

Infinite regression of contingent beings?

Answer 6

is impossible, indicating that not everything can be contingent
Thus, there must be a necessary being that initiates the chain of contingency which Aquinas identifies as god
although we cannot deserve a necessary being, aquinas logically demonstrates its necessity

Question 7

What does Kalam argument observe?

Answer 7

of anything that begins to exist, we begin to exist, we can ask what caused it, for example what caused us? our parents
this can then be repeated- i.e what caused my parents, essentially this can go back to the very beginning of the universe
we can then ask what caused the universe? as if the universe began to exist - it must have a cause for its existence

Question 8

What is required if something that causes things to exist but the existence of which is not caused itself?

Answer 8

answer is that only God can be such a thing

Question 9

WL craig?

Answer 9

brought this argument to prominence in the late 20th century and named it Kalam after the islamic philosophy first invented it in the 11th century

Question 10

Craig?

Answer 10

scientific explanation applies within the universe - therefore cannot apply to its actual creation

Question 11

Only other option?

Answer 11

would have a personal explanation - meanig intentionally created by intelligent minds

Question 12

Ex nihlo?

Answer 12

power to create a universe from nothing

Question 13

temporal being?

Answer 13

time and space did not exist until it created the universe

Question 14

timeless being?

Answer 14

eternal - did not begin to exist
the explanation for how the answer of god did not contradict the premise that everything must have a cause

Question 15

Impossibility of an infinite regression?

Answer 15

premise that the universe must have a beginning is justified through an apriori argument against infinite regress

Question 16

What des craig reject?

Answer 16

possibility of an actual infinite, meaning the idea that infinity does physically exist in reality
The issue is that sets with infinite members can paradoxically equal in size to the subsets

Question 17

Infinite library analogy?

Answer 17

This is illustrated with the infinite library that contains an infinite number of books, half of which are green. The green books are half of the total, so we know that there are less than the total; however, half of infinity is still infinity As such, the green books are both less than and the same size as the total number of books; this is a paradoxical absurdity, resulting in the conclusion that infinity cannot exist in reality

Question 18

Craig also argues that?

Answer 18

you cannot traverse an infinite through successive addition, as we never would have gotten to this moment in time if an infinite number of moments had to pass in order to get to it

Question 19

Craig?

Answer 19

provides a posteriori reasoning against infinite regress. The evidence from modern cosmology suggests that the universe had a beginning due to evidence from the big bang theory

Question 20

Counter argument?

Answer 20

, stating there could be an infinite regress and therefore no first cause; the universe could simply have always existed in some form, as such god’s existence cannot be appealed to as the explanation of the origin of what exists if there was never any origin to begin with
Hume thinks an infinite regress can not be ruled out a priori since a finite regress can be denied without contradiction
A concept of time does not seem to be contradicted by infinite
An infinite regress may be difficult to imagine but there is no obvious logical contradiction in it

Question 21

G cantor?

Answer 21

states that for infinite sets it is not absurd, it is actually a defining characteristic
When we think of libraries, we have in our mind, our ideas about finite sets of things
Cantor argued these intuitions are not applicable to infinite sets
Infinite sets simply have different mathematical properties, one of which is the possibility of a one-to-one relation between the number of members with infinite sets and their subsets

Question 22

Scientific theories of the origins of the universe?

Answer 22

an sometimes involve the possibility of an infinite regress; one of these is that the universe eternally cycles between expansion and collapse ( Big bang, big crunch). a new timeline begins each cycle
In that case, an infinite amount of time never actually passes and in fact, a timeline containing actual infinite never existed

Question 23

Why is hume stance successful?

Answer 23

as it takes the right stance between philosophy and science
Philosophical analysis is useful only to the degree that a concept is fully understood

Question 24

What is the problem?

Answer 24

Problem is that we know very little about what time actually is scientifically
As a result, Aquinas and Craig’s philosophical reasoning about time and infinity is fundamentally limited, and their claims about the causal principle are limited for the same reason.
The history of science has proven many metaphysical institutions to be false
Such as the discovery that space is non-Euclidean or the apparent paradoxes that arise from quantum mechanics
Science has shown reality to be far stranger than past philosophers thought to be possible
The cosmological argument therefore fails as they rely on the philosophical assumption of the impossibility of an infinite regression, which is really a scientific question

Question 25

What is the causal principle?

Answer 25

A strength of the cosmological argument is their support from the causal principle, which is the idea that every event must have a cause
Philosophers such as swinburne would believe this approach could work; every event we have experienced has had a cause; as such, the evidence supports the causal principle. Not as a necessary truth but as an empirical inference.
However, Hume still objects that we do not know whether the current state of the universe is anything similar to its origin; therefore, we cannot infer from observations made within the universe to the external nature of its origin
To have valid empirical evidence, we would need to either observe the origin itself or the origin of other universes, which we currently can not and may never be able to do
As a result, we have no good reason; either a priori or a posteriori; we believe the universe had a cause.