Cosmological arguments

Question 1

overview of cosmological args

Answer 1

start from the observation that everything depends on something else for its existence
The argument is that the universe depends on something else to exist: God.

Question 2

how many cosmo args are there and who!

Answer 2

1. Kalam arg
2. Aquinas’ five ways
3. descartes arg
4. Leibniz: sufficient reason

Question 3

what is the Kalam arg

Answer 3

1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2.The universe began to exist
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause

Question 4

what 3 of aquinas five ways do you need to know

Answer 4

1. arg from motion
2. arg from causation
3. contingency arg

Question 5

aquinas five ways

motion

Answer 5

1. Some things in the world are in motion E.g. a football rolling along the ground
2. Things can’t move themselves, so whatever is in motion must have been put in motion by something else E.g. someone kicked the ball
3. If A is put in motion by B, then something else (C) must have put B in motion, and so on
4. If this chain goes on infinitely, then there is no first mover
5. If there is no first mover, then there is no other mover, and so nothing would be in motion
6. But things are in motion
7. Therefore, there must be a first mover
8. The first mover is God

Question 6

aquina’s five ways

causation

Answer 6

1. Everything in the universe is subject to cause and effect E.g. throwing a rock caused the window to smash
2. C is caused by B, and B is caused by A, and so on
3. If this chain of causation was infinite, there would be no first cause
4. If there were no first cause, there would be no subsequent causes or effects
5. But there are causes and effects in the world
6. Therefore, there must have been a first cause
7. The first cause is God

Question 7

aquinas five ways

contingency

Answer 7

1. Everything that exists contingently did not exist at some point
2. If everything exists contingently, then at some point nothing existed
3. If nothing existed, then nothing could begin to exist
4. But since things did begin to exist, there was never nothing in existence
5. Therefore, there must be something that does not exist contingently, but that exists necessarily
6. This necessary being is God

Question 8

descartes cosmo arg

Answer 8

1. I can’t be the cause of my own existence because if I was I would have given myself all perfections (e.g. omnipotence, omniscience, etc.)
2. I depend on something else to exist
3. I am a thinking thing and have the idea of God
4. Whatever caused me to exist must also be a thinking thing that has the idea of God
5. Whatever caused me to exist must either be the cause of its own existence or caused by something else
6. If it was caused by something else then this something else must also either be the cause of its own existence or caused by something else
7. There cannot be an infinite chain of causes
8. So there must be something that caused its own existence
9. Whatever causes its own existence is God

ALSO he talks about a cause needed to keep him in existence and how there must be ‘as much reality’ in the cause as in the effect

Question 9

what is leibniz’s arg an arg FROM?

Answer 9

contingency

Question 10

whta is leibniz’s arg premised on

Answer 10

principle of sufficient reason
[says that every truth has an explanation of why it is the case (even if we can’t know this explanation)]

Question 11

what are leibniz’s two definition of truth

Answer 11

necessary truths- is revealed by analysis. When you analyse and understand “3+3=6”, for example, you don’t need a further explanation why it is true.
contingent truths- you can explain the existence of a tree by saying someone planted a seed. But you could then ask why the person planted the seed, or why seeds exist in the first place, or why the laws of physics are the way they are, and so on. This process of providing contingent reasons for contingent facts goes on forever.

Question 12

what is sufficient reason for necessary truths

leibniz

Answer 12

The sufficient reason for necessary truths is revealed by analysis. When you analyse and understand “3+3=6”, for example, you don’t need a further explanation why it is true.

Question 13

why is it harder to provide sufficient reason for contingent truths

Answer 13

But it is more difficult to provide sufficient reason for contingent truths **because you can always provide more detail via more contingent truths. **

For example, you can explain the existence of a tree by saying someone planted a seed. But you could then ask why the person planted the seed, or why seeds exist in the first place, or why the laws of physics are the way they are, and so on. This process of providing contingent reasons for contingent facts goes on forever.

Question 14

how does leibniz overcome the endless cycle of contingent truths

Answer 14

we need to step outside the sequence of contingent facts and appeal to a necessary substance. This necessary substance is God, Leibniz says.

Question 15

problems for leibniz’s arg for sufficient reason

Answer 15

1. is a first cause necessary
2. hume’s objection to causation
3. russell: fallacy of composition

Question 16

is a first cause necessary

problem for leibniz’s arg for sufficient reason

Answer 16

Most of the cosmological arguments assume something along the lines of ‘there can’t be an infinite chain of causes’
For example, they say stuff like there must have been a first cause or a prime mover.

But we can respond by rejecting this claim. Why must there be a first cause? Perhaps there is just be an infinite chain of causes stretching back forever.

Question 17

hume’s objection to causation

problem for leibniz’s arg for sufficient reason

Answer 17

But Hume’s fork can be used to question this claim that ‘everything has a cause’:

Relation of ideas: ‘Everything has a cause’ is not a relation of ideas because we can conceive of something without a cause. For example, we can imagine a chair that just springs into existence for no reason – it’s a weird idea, but it’s not a logical contradiction like a 4-sided triangle or a married bachelor.
Matter of fact: ‘Everything has a cause’ cannot be known as a matter of fact either, says Hume. We never actually experience causation – we just see event A happen and then event B happen after. Even if we see B follow A a million times, we never experience A causing B, just the ‘constant conjunction’ of A and B.

in the specific case of the creation of the universe, we only ever experience event B (i.e. the continued existence of the universe) and never what came before (i.e. the thing that caused the universe to exist).

Question 18

Russell’s fallacy of composition

problem for leibniz’s arg for sufficient reason [can be used for all]

Answer 18

The fallacy of composition is an invalid inference that because parts of something have a certain property, the entire thing must also have this property.
e.g Just because a sheet of paper is thin, it doesn’t mean things made from sheets of paper are thin. For example, a book with enough sheets of paper can be thick

Applying this to the cosmological argument, we can raise a similar objection to Hume’s above: just because everything within the universe has a cause, doesn’t guarantee that the universe itself has a cause.

Or, to apply it to Leibniz’s cosmological argument: just because everything within the universe requires sufficient reason to explain its existence, doesn’t mean the universe itself requires sufficient reason to explain its existence. Russell says: “the universe is just there, and that’s all.”

Question 19

is the first cause god

problem for aquinas’ 1st and 2nd way +kalam arg

Answer 19

Aquinas’ first and second ways and the Kalam argument only show that there is a first cause. But they don’t show that this first cause is God.

So, even if we accept that there was a first cause, it doesn’t necessarily follow that God exists – much less the specific being described in the concept of God.

So, even if the cosmological argument is sound, it doesn’t necessarily follow that God exists.

Question 20

response to ‘is a first cause necessary’

leibniz

Answer 20

An infinite chain of causes would mean an infinite amount of time has passed prior to the present moment
If an infinite amount of time has passed, then the universe can’t get any older (because infinity + 1 = infinity)
But the universe is getting older (e.g. the universe is a year older in 2020 than it was in 2019)
Therefore an infinite amount of time has not passed
Therefore there is not an infinite chain of causes

Question 23

response to russell’s fallacy of composition

cosmo args [leibniz’s specifically]

Answer 23

Ok, but everything within the universe exists contingently
And if everything within the universe didn’t exist, then the universe itself wouldn’t exist either (because that’s all the universe is: the collection of things that make it up)
So the universe itself exists contingently, not just the stuff within it
And so the universe itself requires sufficient reason to explain its existence

Question 24

response to is the first cause god

problem for aquinas’ 1st and 2nd way +kalam arg

Answer 24

This objection doesn’t work so well against Descartes’ version because he specifically reasons that there is a first cause and that this first cause is an omnipotent and omniscient God.

Similarly, you could argue that any being that exists necessarily (such as follows from Aquinas’ third way and Leibniz’s cosmological argument) would be God.