cosmological argument Flashcards
what is the kalam argument?
p1) the universe is composed of temporal phenomena - things that occur and exist in time - that are preceded by other temporal phenomena that are ordered in time
p2) an infinite regress of temporal phenomena is impossible
c1) therefore, the universe must have a beginning
p3) everything that begins to exist has a cause of it’s existence
c2) therefore, there ia cause of the existence of the universe
what is the infinite regress criticism of the kalam argument?
even if we concede that everything has a beginning - does that mean everything must have a cause?
if it does have a cause does the cause not have a cause? infinite regress of causes?
what is aquinas’ first way?
p1) the universe contains motion
p2) nothing can move/change itself - it must be moved/changed by something distinct from it
p3) if there were an infinite series of such secondary movers then there would be no first mover
p4) if there were no first mover there could not be any motion - since if you remove the cause, you cannot have the effect
c1) therefore, there must be a first mover
p5) god is the first mover
c2) therefore, god exists
what is a criticism with aquinas’ first way?
if something causes another thing to change towards a particular state, then that first thing must already be in that state
e.g. wood cannot make itself hot although it has the potential to BECOME hot.
but some things dont fit this pattern - if a plant is dying, is the thing bringing about the death itself dead?
if aquinas’ claim is true he would have to show why the things bringing about death are themselves dying
what is aquinas’ 2nd way?
p1) we find in the world causes and effects
p2) nothing can causally depend on itself
p3) causes follow in order: the first causally sustains the second which causally sustains the third
p4) if you remove a cause, you remove its effects
c1) therefore, if there is no first cause, there will be no other causes
p5) if there is an infinite regress of causes, there is no first cause
c2) therefore, given that there are causes, there canno tbe an infinite regress of causes
c3) therefore, there must be a first cause, which itself is not caused
p6) god is the first cause
c4) therefore, god exists
what is the nature of god that is being concluded by aquinas?
we can agree that his argument claims that god once existed and once created the unvierse, but they do not show that god SRILL exists.
- however, some argue that the term causation is something that sustains an event and so god must still be here today
do aquinas’ arguments rest on a contradiction?
aquinas argues that everything must have a cause and nothing can cause itself, and thn concludes that something must exist that can be the cause of everything and itself.
however some argue that without the exception from everything must have a cause then nothing could be at all.
what is aquinas’ 3rd way?
p1) things in the world are contingent
c1) therefore, they come into existence at some time and go out of existence at some time
c2) therefore, for each contingent thing there was a time when they did not exist
p2) but the whole universe is itself contingent because it is just the sum total of contingent things
c3) therefore, if the whole universe is contingent there must have been a time when nothing existed
p3) but nothing can come from nothing
c4) so it cannot be true everything is contingent
c5) so there must be some one thing which has necessary existence and keeps everything else in existence
c) this is god
what is the criticism of aquinas’ 3rd way?
aquinas is saying that over an infinite period of time, all contingent things must come to an end, because they are impermanent and this would leave nothing left in existence
- however, mackie is argues that aquinas is committing a fallacy if he thinks he can jump from everything at some time does not exist to at some time everything does not exist
- there may be an infinite series overlap
what is descartes’ argument?
p1) the cause of anything must at least be as perfect as its effect
p2) my idea must be caused by something
p3) i am an imperfect being
p4) i have the idea of god, which is that of a perfect being
c1) i cannot be the cause of my idea of god
c2) only a perfect being can be the cause of my idea of god
c) god must exist
what is the criticism of descartes’ argument?
his argument is circular
- descartes has established that he exists as a thinking thing and even an evil demon cannot decieve him about his own existence
- from that point descartes uses an array of clear and distinct ideas to prove the existence of god but then uses the existence of god to prove his clear and distinct ideas
what is leibniz’s argument?
p1) the principle of sufficient reason: every fact has an explanation that provides a sufficient reason for why things are as they are and not otherwise
p2) there are two kinds of truth:
p2a) truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is impossible
p2b) truths of fact of contingent and their opposite is possible. the sufficient reason for a truth of fact cannot be found in other contingent truths because those too require reason
c1) therefore, to provide a sufficient reason for any contingent fact, we must look outside the sequence of contingent facts
c2) therefore, the sufficient reason for contingent facts must be a necessary substance that is a sufficient reason for all contingent facts
c3) this necessary substance is god
c4) god exists
what is the criticism that we are then equating laws of thought with laws of the world?
just because something is not conceivable, does that mean it’s not possible e.g. philosophical zombie
- just because we mentally concieve that every fact has a sufficient reason for being that way, doesn’t mean it does
how detailed does a sufficient reason need to be?
for a chemical equation where X + Y = Z perhaps giving the condition of the experiment and the scientific laws in question is enough
- but for some people would ask whether this account is complete - we havent given the reason why the laws of science are as they are
what is the criticism of infinite series?
you cannot add days to an infinite amount of time - but each new day that passess adds to the time that the universe has been in existence so the universe cannot have been in existence for an infinite amount of time
- the turtles example
what is hume’s objection to the causal principle?
hume believes that we never experience causation - but that we experience a repeated event leading to another event - this is constant conjunction
- hume says that descartes’ argument that something caused his idea of god cannot be right as we cannot know a priori the cause of something especially if we are seeing the effects for the first time.
what is the impossibility of a necessary being?
hume and russell agree that we can talk about necessary propositions or statements but we cannot talk about necessary beings
- god is a necessary being = god exists is necessarily true
