Cosmological Argument for proof

Question 1

Issue with being a posteriori

Answer 1

Based on probabilities

Question 2

How did Hughes argue reasons why we should accept a concept as proof based on overwhelming probability.

Answer 2

We have no direct evidence quarks exist, the standard model of physics wouldn’t work without them, so must exist. It would be unreasonable to deny their existence even without direct evidence.

Question 3

Hughes applying quarks to God.

Answer 3

Nothing happens without causal explanation, being brute fact is therefore not satisfactory, universe needs an explanation outside itself, reasonable to think the explanation to be God. We have no direct evidence quarks exist, Being brute fact is logically possible, but is as unlikely as the sudden appearance of a pink zombie ect. So, is a proof to Hughes as no other chain of reasoning satisfies him.

Question 4

What is Hare’s concept of Bliks? Quote he gives.

Answer 4

Blik is a view of the world that governs what we believe. ‘no proof could be given to make us adopt one blik rather than another’. Athiestic blik being that the universe has no explanation, cannot be changed.

Question 5

Hume’s statement backing idea of bliks

Answer 5

Since the argument reaches conclusions outside of our experience, believing it points to God is based on pre-existing belief. Religious believers are not logically forced to interpret universe as a consequence of God, they chose to.

Question 6

NIce statement for not being a proof

Answer 6

Can only suggest God as an explanation for the existence of the universe, supports probability of God, so can only lead to agnosticism.