Cosmological Arguments Flashcards
Explain the Kalam argument
The Kalam argument is the argument that puts ideas of causation, time + the world together;
- The universe is composed of temporal phenomena (things that occur + exist in time) that are preceded by other temporal phenomena
- An infinite regress of temporal phenomena is impossible
- Therefore the universe must have a beginning
- Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence
- Therefore there is a cause of the existence of the universe
Explain the criticism of the Kalam argument;
- To reach the conclusion that God is the cause of the universe we have to add further premises to Kalam argument.
P1 is accurate - we live in a universe that is in time + not an atemporal world
But P2 +3 are more contentious as if we deny P3 then it seems were arguing that something can come out of nothing so we must accept that , leaving P2 given that the universe of temporal the universe cannot have always existed.
- If it has then there’s an infinite sequence of things occurring own time + if this is possible we have to infer the universe must have a beginning. However its not necessary true that its ‘imposisble’ for the universe to be infinite or for there to be an infinite series of temporal phenomena as Kalam claims + his we can reject this argument.
Explain Aquinas 2nd Way (argument from atemporal causation)
- We find in the world sustained causes + effects
- Nothing can casually depend on itself (to do so would require the power o sustain its own existence)
- Sustaining causes follow logical order the first sustains the second and so on
- If you remove a cause you remove its effect
- Thus, if there is no first cause a sustaining cause does not causally depend on any other cause
- If there’s infinite regress of causes, then there is no 1st accuse
Given that there’s a sustained causes, there can’t be infinite regression of causes
- Therefore there must be a first cause
- This first cause is god + thus god exists.
Explain Aquinas 1st Way (argument from motion)
- Some things in the world undergo change
- Whatever changes is changed by something. A property can’t cause itself to exist.
- If A is changed by B then B is changed by something else
- If this goes on into infinitiy the there’s no first cause of change
- To remove a cause is to remove its effect
- Therefore there’s no first cause of change + son nothing changes
- Therefore there must be a first cause of change e something that causes change but is not itself changed
- This first cause is God + Thus God exists.
State Descartes Cosmological argument
- If I cause my own existence, I would give myself all perfections
- I do not have al perfections
- Therefore, I’m not the cause of my own existance
- A lifespans composed of independent parts, my existing at one time doesn’t entail my existance at another time/later on
- Therefore some cause is needed to keep me in existence as my existence isn’t uncaused
- I don’t have the power to keep myself in existance + therefore depend on something else to exist
- I have the idea of god, there must be as much reality in the cause as in the effect
- Therefore what caused me must be a thinking being + have the idea of god
- Either what caused me is the cause of its own existence or caused by another cause
- There can’t be an infinity regress/sequence of causes
- Therefore what caused me must be the cause of its own existence. This thing is god + thus god exists.
Explain Humes objection to Descartes cosmological argument
Hume argues that we have no experience of such things as ‘the beginning of the universe’ + the beginning of the universe isn’t just an event ie it doesn’t take place in space or happen within the universe.
- We cannot apply principles we have developed for events in the universe. Perhaps the universe began but wasn’t caused to begin + there its not true o argue god has to be the cause of our universe.
- Using Humes argument of ‘Sustained causes’ Do we even need to believe that everything exists has a sustaining cause ie nuclear fusion in the sun doesn’t have a sustaining cause it just keeps occurring in a sustained manner nothings needed to keep this in existence.
Explain Russels Fallacy of Composition as an objection to the Kalam cosmological argument
We can’t be so niece to assume that everything which applies within the universe applies to the universe as a whole because to do so is to commit the fallacy of composition.
eg ‘no atoms are alive’ therefore ‘nothing made of atoms is alive’ - this is untrue + very problematic
This isnt to say this logic doesn’t work sometimes eg if all the bricks were red and you were to argue the wall itself is therefore red this would be accurate but eg to say ‘all bricks are small’ therefore ‘the brick wall is small’ is not the case. Just because everything within the universe I has a cause this doesn’t logically entail that the universe itself has to have a cause.
Explain Aquinas 3rd way (cosmological argument) The Argument from Contingency
The Contingency/cosmological argument (Aquinas 3rd Way)
P1- Things in the universe exist contingently
P2- If its possible for something to not to exist, than at some time it did not exist
C1- If everything exists contingently then its possible that at some time there was nothing in existence.
P4- If at some time nothing was in existence nothing could begin to exist (something can’t come out of nothing)
C2- Since things do exist then there was never nothing in existence.
C3- Therefore there is something that does not exist contingently but necessarily + this thing must exist
P6- This necessary being is God
C4- Therefore God exists
Explain Leibniz Principle of Sufficient Reason as an argument from contingency
The principle of SR states; every true fact has an explanation that provides a sufficient reason for why things are as they are. The principle of sufficient reason applies to everything (even if in most cases we don’t know what that sufficient reason is)
Contingent Existence;
Reasons for contingent truths can be given in more and more detail but all this detail only brings in other contingent facts Eg i am the height i am because of my genes and these further contingent facts also need explaining; Why do I have the genes that i do? etc.
Therefore when we give explanations of this sort we move no nearer to the goal of completely explaining contingencies. Therefore we cannot keep relying on contingencies in order to explain other contingent fact. The sufficient reasons for contingent fact must be in a necessary substance. This necessary substance is God
(Leibniz is basically argues there is always a sufficient reason for something/explanation for everything. We could argue unless God exists, this question is unanswerable as there would be an ‘infinite regress’) So Leibniz principle of sufficient reason = argument god exists.
State the 5 key objections to the Cosmological argument
1 - The Causal Principle 2 - Contingent existence 3 - Russells the Fallacy of Composition 4 - A series of contingencies/explanation 5 - Necessary Being
Explain Criticism NO.1 The Casual Principle
Is it necessary true to say if there was a point where nothing existed then its impossible for anything to come into existence? Hume would argue it’s not accurate to say ‘something cannot come out of nothing’ + that ‘everything has a cause’ these statements are not analytic so are not factual or certain at all.
I.e Gluons in physics are atoms which can come out of nowhere in + out of existence and they require no cause
Explain Criticism NO.2 Contingent existence
We can’t assume that just because contingent things can com e into existence that every single contingent thing has previously not existed - there’s no way of proving this fact. Thus its arguable the basis of Aquinas cosmological if flawed
Explain Criticism NO.3 Russells Fallacy of Composition
We cannot be so naive as to believe that simply because a property applies to the things contained within the universe require a cause of their existence that the universe as a whole requires a cause. To do so is to commit the fallacy of composition
(Apply a property of something to the property as a whole) For example if you state ‘all human beings have a mother’ so ‘the human race has a mother’ this is commuting the fallacy of composition. This isn’t to say the analogy never works ie ‘all bricks are red so the wall is red’ however to argue ‘all bricks are small thus the wall is small’ is committing the fallacy. Thus Russells argument can be used to undermine the basis of cosmological arguments.
Explain Criticism NO.4 A series of contingent things/Explanation
Cosmological arguments ultimately presupposes that an infinite regression or sequence of contingent things is paradoxical (impossible) however this is not the case as it cannot be proved. Therefore any claim that there cannot be an invite sequences of causes or temporal phenomena is not substantiated + can be challenged.
Similarly Hume would object + argue that we cannot ever know that every being or thing requires an explanation, perhaps the universe is uncased or inexplicable.
Explain Criticism NO.5 Necessary Being
For Empiricist the concept of a necessary being, a being whose non-existence implies contradiction is problematic and impossible. There’s no being who’s non-existence is impossible as anything distinctly conceivable we can equally conceive as not existing.
