Cosmological arguments

Question 1

explain the kalam argument

Answer 1

A horizontal causal argument which aims to prove the universe has a beginning, which rests upon the metaphysical intuition that everything has a beginning.
P1.everything that begins to exist has a cause
P2. the universe began to exist
C. the universe has a cause

Question 2

what are aquinas’s three ways
mocaco

Answer 2

motion
causation
contingency

Question 3

what are cosmological arguments

Answer 3

cosmological arguments have a posteriori premises, derived from observations/ experience of the universe. which rely on the notion an infinite regress is not possible, using this to prove the existence of god

Question 4

Outline aquinas’s cosmological argument from motion

Answer 4

the motion argument is a causal argument, which relies on ideas of actuality and potentiality, aquinas uses this appoint God as a necessary cause for the universe. His argument follows:
P1. everything in the universe is in motion
P2. motion means moving from a ‘potential state’ (a clod thing which could be hotter), to an actual state (the cold thing becoming hotter).
P3. In order to put a potential state into an actual state, it is a precondition to be in an actual state.
P4. Nothing can cause itself to be in motion, so everything is caused by something else
P5. an infinite regress of this is impossible, otherwise there would be no chain of motion as there would be no cause.
P6. there is a chain, meaning there is a first mover, which is itself unmoved.
C1. this mover is God

Question 5

Outline aquinas’s cosmological argument from atemporal causation.

Answer 5

The atemporal causation argument relies on the metaphysical idea of efficient causation (the primary explanation for what occurred prior to that event), in order to appoint God as the cause of the universe.
the argument follows:
P1. there is an order of efficient causes
P2. nothing can be the cause of itself
P3. an infinite regress of causes is impossible, otherwise there would be no chain of causes.
P4. there is a chain of infinite causes
C1. therefore there must be a first cause, which itself is not caused
C2. this is God

Question 6

Outline ‘an infinite regress is impossible’ argument

Answer 6

argues that an infinite regress is incoherent, through using the movements of planets to show how infinity generated a mathematical paradox. the arguments follows:
P1.jupiter has a 12 year orbit of the sun, saturn has a 30 year orbit of the sun, therefore jupiter has over twice the rotations around the sun as saturn.
P2. if the universe is infinite then jupiter has done the same amount of orbits as saturn (infinite)
P3. this is absurd (P2 contradicts P1, but we know P1 is correct)
C1. therefore time cannot be infinite
C2. the cause of the universe must be a personal cause, which is God

Question 7

Outline aquinas’s cosmological argument from contingency

Answer 7

Relies on the metaphysical concepts of necessity and contingency. His argument from contingency aims to show that it is impossible for everything in the universe contingent on something else, and that there must be a necessary being on which the contingent universe depends on. the third way can be formalised as follows:
P1. everything in the universe are contingent (coming into and out of existence)
P2. if everything was contingent, then it is possible there was a point in time where nothing existed.
P3. if there was nothing, then there would be nothing now, but this is false
C1. therefore not everything is contingent, there must be one thing which is necessary
C2. this is God.

Question 8

Leibniz argument from sufficient reason

Answer 8

Draws on his principle of sufficient reason and his particular distinction between necessary and contingent facts. ‘events cannot occur for no reason’.
-Makes a distinction between necessary and contingent facts.
-Leibniz argues that contingent facts cannot be fully explained by one another, there must be a necessary fact/being, which leibniz claims is god.

P1. No fact can ever be true or existent without sufficient reason why they are and not otherwise.
P2. contingent facts exist.
P3. Contingent facts can only be partially explained in terms of other contingent facts.
C1. The whole series of facts cannot be sufficiently explained by any contingent truths.
C2. The sufficient reason for all contingent facts and for series of facts must lie outside of the series of contingent.
C3. The ultimate reason for facts must be in a necessary substance, which we call god.