Cosmological Argument Flashcards
What type of argument is the cosmological argument?
A posteriori
What Is Gotfried Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason?
We need an explanation for why things exist. If you assume the universe is eternal then we have no explanation for the why the universe exists. Man cannot find the reason for the universe in the universe so the cause must be outside of the universe, therefore, probably, ‘God’.
What did Richard Swinburne say about the cosmological argument?
Why is there something rather than nothing? Nothing is much more likely. B may be explained by A, and C by B, but something must cause A. Rejection of infinite regress. Something is the cause.
How did David Hume criticise the cosmological argument?
There is no being that the non-existence of which is inconceivable.
Believe Aquinas was guilty of an inductive leap in logic in which the premises do not lead to the conclusion- tried to combine a priori and a posteriori knowledge.
What is the problem of necessity in the cosmological argument?
The argument starts by saying God exists which is supposedly what must be proved.
What is Thomas Aquinas’s first way?
Motion. Things that move must be moved by something. Things cannot move themselves. Things are in motion. There cannot be infinite regress in the chain of motion. There must have been a first, unmoved mover that causes motion in all things. The first, unmoved mover is what we call God.
What is Thomas Aquinas’s second way?
Cause. An infinite chain of causes cannot be, as there would be no first cause, and without a first cause there would be no subsequent causes - there would be nothing. However, there is something. The universe exists and is constantly changing. Everything in existence has a cause. Causes come before their effects. A chain of causes and effects cannot regress to infinity. There must be a first uncaused cause. This cause is God
What is Thomas Aquinas’s third way?
Contingency. There are things which are both possible to be and not to be. Matter in the universe sis contingent, it is caused and comes into being. Therefore at one point in time there was nothing in existence. Without an uncaused caused, it would be impossible for anything to start to exist, and even now there would be nothing. But there is something. We therefore need to accept a being whose existence is necessary. Without the necessary existence of this being nothing would exist. This being whose existence is necessary is God.
What are the main general criticisms of the cosmological argument?
- how can God not have a cause? What caused God?
- God is not explained by the argument
- Big Bang could be an explanation in itself
- doesn’t explain why there cannot be infinite regress
- only works for those who are satisfied by God not having a cause
What are the strengths of the cosmological argument?
- God is the simplest way of explaining the universe
- ockham’s razor: simplest explanation is often the correct one
- a posteriori- always appeals because it is based on evidence
- solution for universe as well as God
What is the cosmological argument based on?
The claim that everything existing in the universe exists because it was caused by something else. That ‘something else’ was itself caused by something else. However, it is necessary for something to have started this all off. Something which was not itself created or caused. That ‘something’ was God.
