Cosmological argument Flashcards
What is the cosmological argument?
The Cosmological argument is an inductive argument that suggests the contingency of everything present in the universe is evidence that there is first cause- a necessary being that started the chain of events.
Aquinas First Way
always a cause for every movement that occurs which creates a chain of ‘moved’ and ‘moving’-> chain cannot go back forever so there mjst be a first, unmoved mover- God
Aquinas Second Way
God is the cause of everything that exists+ isn’t caused by anything. He’s in nature+existence to things that exist in the world. Everything is dependent on God for continued existence.
Hume criticism of Aquinas’ cause+effect
-Impossible to logically deduce a cause from a cause from a particular effect.
-can predict with accurancy a cause from an effect through ‘constant conjunction’- repeatedly observing causes producing effects in the past
Aquinas Third Way
‘not all beings are merely possible, but there must be something the existence of which is necessary’. If everything were contingent, would have been a point where nothing existed as contingent beings cannot cause themselves. However, bc something exists now, there must be a necessary being capable of creating ex nihilo- God
Counter to Third Way
Hume- infinite regress is possible since there is no logical necessity for a first cause. -infinite chain of causes is just as plausible as the idea of there being a first cause if the principle of causation is applied. Treatise of Human Nature, Hume- ‘we can infer the existence of one object from that of another’,-> based on our observation of causality cannot fully dismiss the idea of an infinite regress. -we impose our own understanding of causality onto the universe’s origin as this is what we experience in the natural world but this understanding isn’t necessarily true. -not claiming that infinite regress is a definite cause for the universe, he shows how it is as equally speculative as a first cause.
Science
Big Bang theory suggests the universe originated from a singularity, a point where space, time and matter were condensed into a dense state before expanding. -> universe had a starting point
Leibniz argument
Principle of Sufficient Reason-everything that exists must have an explanation for its existence since ‘nothing takes place without a sufficient reason’. Since a series of contingent beings or events cannot be self-explanatory, means the universe requires a necessary being to account for its existence; otherwise, it wouldn’t exist
Criticism of Leibniz
fallacy of composition- just bc individual contingent things require an explanation does not necessarily imply that the universe, as a whole, requires one. it is a logical leap to assume that the universe must be contingent and therefore require an explanation
Backed up by Russell-> if all the bricks are small does the wall have to be small
Copleston argument
- everything in the universe is contingent
- the universe is an aggregate of all things in it
- therefore the universe is contingent
- contingent things require an explanation
- therefore the universe requires an explanation
- infinite regression is not an explanation
- an entity that possesses necessary existence is needed to explain the universe
Betrand Russell
- attacks concept of necessary existence
-> ‘necessary’ meaningless unless applied to analytical statements
example
‘irrational animals are animals’ (analytic) vs ‘this is an animal’ (synthetic as can disprove)
copleston has made a linguistic mistake
o ‘existent round square’
o logically contradictory same w ‘necessary being’ can use seperately but when together nonsense
o only important explanations for things is immediate causes
COPLESTON - sufficient reason ‘total explanation’
o total explanation doesn’t exist so no point looking universe= ‘brute fact’
William Craig
Kalam Cosmological Argument-
‘Every being which begins has a cause’ +since the universe began to exist, it must have a cause beyond itself.
-emphasises that the universe’s origin is a contingent event that requires an explanation.
-there must be a necessary being responsible for the existence of the universe, which he concludes to be God
Counter to Craig
Hume sceptic about the concept of necessity.
proposes that the concept of necessity is not inherent in the universe but a result of our tendency to explain the causes of things based on our experiences and observations. He questions the idea that something must exist in all possible worlds, suggesting that necessity is not a concept we can empirically verify
