Cosmological argument Flashcards
What is Aquinas’s first way
Infinite regresses are impossible
If so, there must be a first cause of all Kinesis - God
Infinite regresses are impossible. This is plausible because…
There must be a first cause for every effect and explanations cant go on forever. If explanations went on forever you would have an infinite regress and you would never end up with a complete explanation.
If so, there use be a first cause of all Kinesis - God this is plausible because…
Kinesis needs an explanation for example the fact that the weather keeps changing This can initially be explained by the change in seasons, which is explained by rotations of the heavenly bodies and the chain of explanations cannot go on forever so It must end in God.
What is Aquinas third way ?
At some point in time nothing contingent existed. If so, a necessary being must have brought them into existence
At some point in time nothing contingent existed. This is plausible because..
If you take one contingent thing and go far back enough in time it would not exist. For example there would be a point in time where a specific table did not exist. Therefore if you take all contingent things far back enough in time they would not exist.
What is Hume’s argument for under determination of theory by evidence
you can’t tell what a cause is by only observing its effect. If so, you can’t tell the universe was created by God by only observing the universe.
you can’t tell what a cause is by only observing its effect This is plausible because..
This is proven by using the analogy of the scales. If you are only shown one side of scales and it is risen you cannot tell what is making the other side risen could be a bunch of feathers or a bunch of gold.
If so, you can’t tell the universe was created by God by only observing the universe. This is plausible because
Through observing the universe you are only experiencing the effect and cannot be certain that the cause was God. It could be a team of gods or a giant Spider.
What is Ockham’s razor
It is simpler to say that God created the universe than to say a team of gods did
if so, it is more likely to be true
what is Aquinas’s second way
infinite regresses are impossible. If so, there must be a first cause of all existence
If so there must be a first cause of all existence
This is plausible because existence needs an explanation. We have an immediate explanation for my existence, my mother but this leads to a chain of explanations for existence but it cannot go on forever, eventually we will end up with the ultimate cause of existence.
What is Aquinas’s third way
At some point in the distant past, nothing contingent existed.
If so, then something necessary must have brought them to existence
At some point in the distant past, nothing contingent existed. This is plausible because …
If you take one contingent thing and go far back enough in time It would not exist. For example there would be a point in time in time where a specific table did not exist. Therefore if you take all contingent things far back enough in time none of them would exist.
If so, something necessary must have brought them to existence. This is plausible because..
when you go far back enough no contingent beings existed. There must be a moment of creation and the creator must be necessary in order to bring everything else into existence and not be brought into existence by something else
What is Hume’s Fallacy of composition
once you have explained where each individual thing comes from it is illogical to try and find the origin of them as a collective
How do you apply Hume’s Fallacy of composition to the first way
I know what causes each individual change in the world. Aquinas assumes there must be one cause of all
kinesis . But this seems unnecessary. We can explain each individual
instance of kinesis, and we don’t need an explanation for the group.
How do you apply Hume’s Fallacy of composition to the second way
I know what caused the existence of each individual in the world. Aquinas
assumes there must also be an explanation for where we all came from (God). But that seems
unnecessary.
what is a reply to Hume’s fallacy of composition
Sometimes it’s right to ask for the explanation of a group.
What is hume’s underdetermination of theory by evidence
You can’t tell the cause of a particular thing by observing only the effect. if so, you can’t determine the cause of existence by experience
What is a reply to underdetermination of theory by evidence
Ockham’s razor
