Cosmological Argument

Question 1

What is the Kalam Argument?

Answer 1

1. Everything with a beginning must have a cause
2. The universe has a beginning
3. Therefore the universe must have a cause

Question 2

Criticise the Kalam Argument.

Answer 2

Cantor created a new form of mathematics, called Set Theory which accommodates for finite and infinite sets. Therefore, the Kalam argument is no longer relevant because infinity is no longer self contradictory.

Question 3

What is Aquinas’ argument from motion?

Answer 3

1. There are things in motion or in a state of change
2. Nothing can move or change itself
3. If there were no first movers then there would be an infinite regress of movers
4. (Reductio ad absurdum) if this was true then there would be no prime mover and no subsequent movers, but this is false
5. Therefore there must be an unmoved prime mover - God

Question 4

What is Aquinas’ argument from causation?

Answer 4

1. There is an order of efficient causes
2. Nothing can cause itself
3. If this order of causes goes back infinitely then there would be no first cause
4. (Reductio ad absurdum) if this was true then there would be no subsequent causes, but this is false
5. Therefore there must be a first cause - God

Question 5

What is Aquinas’ argument from contingency?

Answer 5

1. Things in the world are contingent
2. If everything was contingent; then at some point when everything passed out of existence, there was nothing
3. (Reductio ad absurdum) if this was true then there would be nothing now because nothing can come from nothing
4. Therefore there must be something that is necessary
5. For every thing that is necessary it either has the cause of its necessity inside or outside of itself
6. Every necessary thing has the cause of its necessity outside of itself
7. (Reductio ad absurdum) if this was true then there would be no ultimate cause of necessity
8. Therefore there must be a necessary being which causes and sustains all over necessary and contingent beings - God

Question 6

Criticise the argument from contingency.

Answer 6

We cannot talk about necessary beings because the concept of necessity only applies to analytical statements.
For example; ‘bachelors are unmarried men’ cannot be denied without self contradiction. Whereas ‘Ghosts exist’ can be denied without self contradiction.
Therefore, we cannot say anything which exists is necessary.

Question 7

What is Descartes’ cosmological argument?

Answer 7

1. I have a clear and contingent idea of God and I exist.
2. I cannot keep myself in existence, nor could I have caused the idea of god (the law of the conservation of energy) because I am an imperfect being and God is a perfect being.
3. Therefore the cause of myself and the idea of God must lie outside of me.
4. A being with equal power must have caused this idea.
5. This being couldn’t have been caused by something else otherwise there would be an infinite regress.
6. So there must be one ultimate cause that is its own cause.
7. This ultimate cause is God

Question 8

Counter Descartes’ cosmological argument.

Answer 8

Modern physics does account for effects that are brought without a cause - e.g. Quantum fluctuations which are the phenomena of virtual particles appearing and disappearing temporarily in space without any cause

Question 9

Outline one of Hume’s criticisms against cosmological arguments.

Answer 9

Why are believers happy to stop at God in their search for an explanation of the universe? If we accept that there are some thins that exist without an explanation then is it possible that the universe itself could be necessary?

Question 10

Explain why Russell says that only propositions can be necessary.

Answer 10

There are no necessary beings because the concept of necessity only applies to analytical statements.
For example; ‘bachelors are unmarried men’ cannot be denied without self contradiction. Whereas ‘Ghosts exist’ can be denied without self contradiction.
Therefore, we cannot say anything which exists is necessary.

Question 11

Explain how Russell counters the cosmological argument with the fallacy of composition

Answer 11

It is true that every member of the human species has a mother, but it would be a fallacy to say that the human race as a whole, has a mother. We can apply this to causation - to say that every single event needs to have a cause would be committing the fallacy of composition, especially when applying it to the universe as a whole.

Question 12

Why does Russell disagree with the claim that every event is dependent on a preceding event and must have a cause?

Answer 12

Some events do not have causes, this doesn’t make them necessary beings. For example; Quantum fluctuations do not have a cause but they are clearly not necessary beings.

Question 13

Explain how Russell rejects the claim that we need an explanation for the universe.

Answer 13

“I should say that the universe is just there, and that is all” - Russell
It is meaningless to ask the question ‘what caused the universe because it would be committing the fallacy of composition to imply that just because events we have witnessed have causes, that the universe as a whole has a cause. The universe doesn’t need an explanation, it just is.

Question 14

Essay plan for the cosmological argument.

Answer 14

P - Kalam Argument
A - Infinity is accounted for
C - Aquinas - argument from contingency
E - Russell, necessary can only apply to statements
A - Descartes cosmological
C - Russell, we can have cause without effect (quantum fluctuations)
E - Cosmological argument is incoherent.