Cosmological Argument- Aquinas

Question 1

The argument from motion

Answer 1

• Everything is constantly moving in a state of potentiality to actuality
• potential is actualised by something else (self-causing)
  => it must be a prime mover (the unmoved mover)

Question 2

The argument from cause

Answer 2

• something cannot be its own efficient cause
• there can’t be an infinite regress of efficient causes as that is the same as saying there is no efficient cause => there must have been a first efficient cause which must have been God

Question 3

The argument from necessity

Answer 3

• things owe their existence to something else, they are contingent upon something else
• “ex nihilo nihil fit”
• necessity is the opposite of contingency
  => in order to avoid the infinite regress problem, there must be a necessary being

Question 4

Hume’s criticism

Answer 4

• sceptical about the argument from cause as we have never experienced everything having a cause => it is an assumption
• causation isn’t an objective thing, it is a “habit of mind”
• Fallacy of composition: even if every event has a cause, that does not mean the universe has a cause
• Russell: every human has a mother but “obviously the human race hasn’t a mother” => all events put together don’t necessarily have a cause

Question 5

Kant’s criticism

Answer 5

• a ‘necessary being’ is logically incoherent
• our knowledge is limited to the phenomenal world => can’t speculate about a being that exists independently of that world

Question 6

Evaluate Aquinas’ 3rd way

Answer 6

• Mackie: even if the 3rd way shows there is a necessary explanation for the universe, doesn’t show that such a necessary being is God, particularly the God of Christianity, why couldn’t it be the Big Bang Theory?
• Kant: relies on the existence of a necessary being => relies on the ontological argument in order to make sense and Kant believes that existence is not a predicate => ontological argument is disproven
  + Leibniz: principle of sufficient reason
• Russell: maybe there isn’t an explanation for the universe, maybe it’s just a “brute fact”
  CP: Copleston: that is the same as a chess player not making a move as R has an unfalsifiable position => Russell is not engaging with the spirit of the question

Question 7

Scientific problems for Aquinas

Answer 7

• principle of conservation of energy: matter and energy may change states but never actually cease to exist => undermines there being a first cause