Cosmological argument Flashcards
4 limitations of a posterior knowledge
:Reliability of sensory experience
:subjectivity and bias
:reliance on empirical evidence
:limitations in verification
What’s a premise
A proposition that helps to support a conclusion
Where does aquinas’ cosmological argument appear
First three of his three ways for proving the existence of god in summa theologica
What’s way 1 of aquinas 5 ways
Motion and change
What’s way 2 of aquinas 5 ways
Causation
Whats way 3 if aquinas 5 ways
Contingency and necessity
What did aquinas observe to reach his argument
The cosmos
What is the cosmological argument
That everything we observe is contingent because they all rely on something else to exist because they are moved ,changed and caused therefore there must be is something that has necessary existence for evrything else to exist
What’s premise one of the argument of contingency and necessity
P1 Everything can exist or not-exist: that is, everything in the natural world is contingent.
What’s premise 2 of the argument of contingency and necessity
P2 If everything is contingent, then at some time there was nothing, because there must have
been a time when nothing had begun to exist.
What’s premise 3 of the argument of contingency and necessity
P3 If there was once nothing, then nothing could have come from nothing.
What’s conclusion 1 of the argument of contingency and necessity
C1 Therefore, something must exist necessarily, otherwise nothing would now exist, which is
obviously false.
What’s premise 4 of the argument of contingency and necessity
P4 Everything necessary must either be caused or uncaused.
What’s premise 5 of the argument of contingency and necessity
P5 But the series of necessary beings cannot be infinite, or there would be no explanation of that
series.
What’s conclusion 2 of the argument of contingency and necessity
C2 Therefore, there must be some uncaused being which exists of its own necessity.
What’s conclusion 3 of the argument of contingency and necessity
C3 And by this, we all understand God.
When was Bertrand russel alive
1872-1970
What’s a fallacy
A failure in reasoning which makes an argument invalid
What’s the fallacy of composition
fallacy
of inferring that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of part of the whole,
or of every part of the whole.
What’s an example of the fallacy of composition
I. Hydrogen is not wet; oxygen is not wet.
II. Therefore water (H20) is not wet.
At what ‘way’ does Russell aim his criticism at
Way 2 the argument from causation
Does fallacy of composition apply to every argument
No , for example if you say the walls are build of bricks so the wall is brick . This is taking a part and making it a whole but it’s valid .
What is Russell’s criticism
That way 2 commits a fallacy of composition
Who says way 3 is not fallacious
Bruce Reichenbach suggests that Way 3 resembles the brick argument so it’s not committing fallacy of composition.
Why is way 3 not a fallacy of composition
What can cease to exist requires an explanation beyond itself. An uncaused
necessary being, beyond the universe, is a good explanation for the existence of the contingent universe
What does Bertrand Russel say about how the universe is made
He said that there is not explanation for the making of universe. The universe is a brute fact . This follows Buddhism as the Buddha says that it’s an unanswerable quistion.
what’s humes’ first criticism
we cant tell if god exists through logic only sensory experience
whats humes’ second criticism
conforms with the occams razor so that its simpler to say that matter existed first rather than matter and the mind.
what’s aquinas’ response to hume’s criticisms
he claims that god is metaphysical necessary
what does metaphysical mean
something that’s essentially true
what’s the weaknesses of the cosmological argument
-way 3 commits fallacy of composition
-Hume and Russel: Hume and Russell: We cannot show that the existence of any being is logically necessary.
-Hume: The universe itself may be the necessary being.
-Russel says the universe is a brute fact
what’s the counter arguments of the cosmological argument
-not all arguments are fallacious such as the brick and brick argument
-way 3 is not talking about gods logical necessity but his metaphysical necessity
-The case for necessarily existing matter is no stronger than the case for a necessarily existing mind.
-science works on the principle that there are no brute facts.
what is occams razor
the idea that the simplest thing is true
what’s a weakness about way 3
the assumption that there is only one god rather than multiple gods
what type of argument is way 3
an inductive argument
what did hughe’s say about inductive proof
he said that it can be true if we have overwhelming proof
what did hughes use is his example for his argument
he says that quarks cant be seen but we have enough proof to KNOW THEY EXIST
why does hughe’s example add to trying to prove gods example
because god is also unobservable and we have overwhelming proof
why is Hughes satisfactory with Aristotle’s argument
because he thinks that he provides enough proof of a necessary being.
what example does Hughes use
the existence of quarks, because we know that they exist through sensory experience but we have overwhelming evidence that they exist.
whats the four components that Hughes breaks the cosmological argument down to
§ Nothing happens without some causal explanation.
§ A satisfactory explanation cannot appeal to something which just happened and was not caused. For example, a satisfactory explanation cannot appeal to brute facts.
§ The existence of the universe requires an explanation outside itself.
§ It is reasonable to think of this transcendent explanation as God.
