Cosmological argument Flashcards
What are the 3 things that describe the nature of the argument?
a posteriori, synthetic, inductuve
What is way 3 the observation of? Conclusion from this?
All things we see in the universe are contingent. Something must exist necessarily, must be external to the universe, to explain why contingent things exist.
What was Platos pre-Christian application?
Motion needs a prior agency to move it, as the power to produce a motion is logically prior to the power to receive and pass it on. So, a first cause (itself uncaused) originated all movement.
How did Aristotle develop Plato’s argument?
Suggested this prime mover must be different from the physical universe, and was an intelligence that activated the world by its presence.
Explain an introduction to 5 ways.
In Summa Theologica , Aquinas put forward 5 ways he believed demonstrated the existence of God, first 3 being cosmological arguments.
Fancy name for 1st way
Kinetological way- argument from motion
Explain Kinetological way
Nothing can move itself from a state of potentiality to a state of actuality, except by something already in a state of actuality.
How does 1st way demonstrate God’s existence?
All things undergo motion, must be a cause of this change that is not itself caused to change by anything- which is God (unchanged changer).
Example and quote Aquinas used for kinetological way? + Aqinas’ conclusion
Called motion ‘the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality’. Eg. Fire (something that is actually hot) changes wood (something that is potentially hot) to a state of being actually hot. C= Change needs an explaination as nothing can be both in potentiality and actuality in the same respect. Argued God that God ia the initiator of change in all things.
Fancy name for 2nd way
Aetiological Way- Argument from causation
Explain aetiological way
All events are caused, nothing can cause itself (logical impossibility) , since the world is a series of events there must be a first cause which all other events depend (God).
How does 2nd way demonstrate God’s existence?
It concludes there must be a first cause, as without this logically nothing would exist at all.
Why does Aquinas reject infinite regress (applicable to aetiological way)
In an infinite chain there is no first cause (logically nothing would exist- as it contrasts our synthetic experience)
Fancy name for way 3
Argument from necessity and contingency
Explain argument from necessity and contingency
Have to conclude that since everything in our experience is contingent (not self-causing/ sustaining), must be some causal agency which is non-contingent, Aquinas explains this through the existence of a necessary being dependant on nothing outside himself that owes itself to a first cause being a God with aseity.
What is Aquinas claiming would be true if everything is contingent
That at some time nothing existed and ex nihilo nihil fit- out of nothing nothing can come. This is false due to synthetic experience, why he highlights the need for an uncaused necessary being that brings all contingent and caused necessary beings into existence
Crit 1- Quote from Copleston backing the Argument from necessity and contingency
If we don’t postulate (suggest) the existence of a necessary being then ‘we do not explain the presence here and now’.
Crit 1- What is the fallacy of composition
where there is an error in assuming what is true for a member of a group is true for the group as a whole
Crit 1- Where is Russell’s fallacy of composition from, example used (hint: roar, fire)
He is associated with the introduction of ‘philosophical logic’, he felt normal lang very misleading, people use words without knowing what they stand for. Eg. example of ‘is’ and how it is used grammatically incorrectly- a tiger is a wild cat, a dragon is a fire breathing creature. ‘is’ mistakenly implies actuality. Developed fallacy of composition where there is an error in assuming what is true for a member of a group is true for the group as a whole.
Crit 1- Example used to explain fallacy of composition + Russell’s application to universe.
Hydrogen is not wet, therefore water is not wet, clearly fallacious, assumes what is true for parts of water is true for the whole. In 1948 radio debate says to Copleston that 3 way assumes that because every man has a mother the universe itself must have a mother- universe is ‘a different logical sphere’.
Crit 1- Russell criticism involving philosophical logic and fallacy of composition
By saying objects contingent in universe , so universe contingent , so must have been created by a non-contingent, uncaused, necessary being implies actuality , falling into same fallacy of the use of ‘is’ in the context of dragons
Crit 1- What is an issue with the fallacy of composition. Give the example (hint- houses). Who applied this to the 3rd way.
The fallacy does not apply to all arguments of part to whole. Eg. Saying the wall is made of bricks so the wall is brick, is not fallacious as the whole (wall) has the same quality as the parts (bricks).
Counter crit 1- Who applied the issue with fallacy of composition to the 3rd way, explain (hint- german gov)
Reichenbach- can be applied to the brick wall argument using same logic that the universe is built from contingent things, so the universe is contingent. So, Way 3 does not commit fallacy of composition as if the things making up universe can cease to exist the universe can too. Since it can cease to exist it needs an explanation beyond itself- an uncaused necessary being is a logical explanation for this.
Crit 2- Explain Hume’s rejection of claim any being can be necessary.
States that any being that exists can also not exist and there is no contradiction in this, so there is no contradiction in saying ‘God does not exist’. Aquinas fails to prove God possesses qualities that make his non-existence impossible. In 3rd way God required to be a necessary being but this is false logic. -Hume assuming Aquinas means logically necessary being when he refers to a necessary being.
Crit 2- What was Hume’s observation + conclusion about human knowledge
All knowledge consequence of synthetic experience. Concluded humans make mistake of allowing imagination to make an unwarranted connection between cause and effect. joining events together
Crit 2- How is Hume’s observation of human knowledge applied to 3rd way
Applies this to Aquinas, error in observing cause + effect in the world and then applying it to the universe’s existence, joining events together. Habit of mind that has made a connection between the 2 events, therefore induction, so it cannot be a proof.
Crit 2- What was the name of Hume’s work where he did what?
‘Dialogues concerning natural religion’- asked why we must conclude universe had to have a beginning, we have no direct experience, so the conclusion of God is not analytic, as you can only know a statement is true through direct experience.
Counter to crit 2- What does 3 way not claim and claim instead. Explain the claim Aquinas is actually making.
Not claim God logically necessary, but metaphysically necessary. Metaphysical necessity being a necessity from the nature of things, is not logically true, just the way things are (H2O being water is not logical, but is just the way it is). Aquinas claiming in our experience, everything contingent, the existence of contingent things require a being a God with aseity, uncaused necessity.
Crit 3- What does Hume say Aquinas is guilty of?
An inductive leap of logic, moves from a need for a necessary being (3 way) to stating it is the God of classical theism, where no premises of the argument lead logically to the conclusion. So, asks why the universe cant be the necessary existent being.
Crit 3- What backs up Hume’s criticism
Occam’s razor, simpler for one entity (matter) than 2 (mind and matter), therefore more probable to be correct. -If something has to be necessary why cant it be the matter that makes the universe instead of God?
Counter Crit 3- What did Aquinas say matter would be?
A caused necessary being, it would still need an uncaused necessary being to cause its existence (God)
Crit 4- What does Russell suggest the universe could be?
Brute Fact, as it is the simplest explanation and there is a fallaccy in assuming you can arrive at an answer. If it is brute fact then the need for a God is redundant.
Counter crit 4- What would not work if we assume brute facts?
Science works on assumption there are no brute facts, if things in the universe are not brute facts, why should the universe be?
