Cosmological Argument Flashcards
What are aquinas’ three ways?
Motion
Causation
Contingency
What’s Aquinas’ third way?
Argument from contingency
1 it is possible for things to be and not be in nature
2 if everything can not-be there would have been a time when nothing existed
3 it is impossible for there to have been a time when nothing existed as then nothing could have come into existence
4 there more there must be something that exists that is necessary
5 there must be an uncaused necessary being
6 this is God
What is Aquinas’ first way?
Argument from motion
Everything that moves must have a mover
Everything has the POTENTIAL to be moved but needs an actual force to make it ACTUAL
The universe as a whole moves and changes so it must have an outside force affecting it
This force exists outside time and space, this must be god
What is Aquinas’ first way with Reductio Ad Absurdum
1 imagine a chain of movers and moves had no beginner
2 there would be no first mover
3 nothing started the chain of things moving
4 if nothing caused the chain then there would be no chain at all because “nothing comes from nothing”(Aristotle’s metaphysical assumption)
5 REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM: If this was the case there would be nothing now
6 therefore there must be a first mover
What is Aquinas’ second way?
Causation
Nothing in the world can cause itself otherwise it would have to exist prior to itself
Therefore there must be a first cause and uncaused cause
What is Aquinas’ second way though Reductio as Absurdum ?
1 there is an order of efficient causes (every event has a cause
2 nothing can be the cause of itself
3 imagine this order of causes going back infinitely and there being no first cause
4 Reductio ad Absurdum - if point 3 were true then there would be no subsequent causes. This is faced
5 therefore there must be a first cause which we call god
Why according to Aquinas must the first cause be god?
He argues that there is no infinite regress as features need an explanation that lies beyond the ordinary chain of motion and causation
The only other explanation is that the cause or mover does not fall under the ordinary rules governing causation.
This would need no further explanation.
God is outside of time, it must be god
What are Hume’s four criticisms of the cosmological argument?
What caused God?
There is no such thing as a necessary being
Hume says we shouldn’t question the existence of the universe
Fallacy of composition
What is Hume’s criticism “what caused God?”
Hume questions why believers are happy to stop at God in their search for an explanation, you could ask “why God? “
If we accept that some things could exist without an explanation (like God) then this could be applied to the universe. If we aren’t prepared to question what caused God, then why are we prepared to question what caused the universe? The universe could exist without explanation
What is Hume’s criticism of the design argument “there is no such thing as a necessary being”
If something is necessary then it cannot be denied without contradiction.
We can always imagine something not existing.
The existence of an alleged “necessary being” can be denied without contradiction. Therefore the idea of a necessary being is not consistent
What is Hume’s criticism that we shouldn’t question the existence of the universe?
Hume argues that seeking explanations beyond the physical universe will lead to an infinite regress of explanations. So we should stop our search and accept it either
1 has no explanation
2 or find an explanation for the universe within our universe
What is Hume’s criticism “fallacy of composition”
Fallacy of thinking that because there is some property common to each part of a group then it must apply to the group as a whole
Example - five Inuits in New York are there for different reasons which we could explain. It would then be unreasonable to ask why the whole group of 5 were there
Just because a group of events share the property of ‘being caused’ it would be a fallacy to conclude that the group as a whole have the same property of ‘being caused’
This shows Aquinas to be mistaken in thinking there must be a first cause that started the chain of events
What is the Kalam argument?
Al-Ghazli , William Lane Craig
1 whatever begins to exist has a cause
2 the universe began to exist
3 the universe has a cause
What is lane Craig’s criticism and response to the first premise of the Kalam argument?
Quantum theory shows something came from nothing
Craig argues that it does not come from nothing but rather a sea of fluctuating energy governed by physical laws that have physical structure. Telling the layman that something comes from nothing is a distortion of there theories
What is Craig’s criticism and response to the second premise of the Kalam argument
Time and causes could go back infinitely (infinite regress)
Response - an actual infinity is impossible. It is logical but not practical. Example- Hilbert’s hotel paradox by David Hilbert.
A hotel with infinite rooms becomes full and a new guest appears (n+1) then infinite number of guests (2n) challenges our ideas of infinity. Shows it to be impractical
