cosmological arguments Flashcards
what are cosmological arguments
- cosmological arguments seek an explanation for the whole universe, concluding that god provides that explanation
- they have a posteriori premises, derived from observations/experience of the universe
- many have deductive form
what is The Kalām argument from temporal causation
- this argument seeks to look back in time (from temporal causation)
P1 Everything with a beginning must have a cause
P2 The universe has a beginning
C Therefore the universe must have a cause - the first premise is a version of the causal principle (the cause of an object must contain at least as much reality as the object itself)
- the second premise claims that the universe couldn’t have existed for an infinite amount of time, and this is what distinguishes the kalām argument from other cosmological arguments
- he aimed to show that an ‘infinite regress’ was not coherant
- he uses the example of Jupiter and Saturn to show this; jupiter and saturn go around the earth for an infinite amount of time, but jupiter goes around faster so we would say jupiter goes around the earth more times than saturn, yet they both go around infinitely, so we are saying they are both infinite and yet different, showing the concept of ‘infinity’ is impossible
- the conclusion is that the nature of the cause of the universe can’t have a scientific explanation and so must have a personal cause, which is god
- the universe must be intentionally created by an intelligent mind
what is Aquinas first way (argument from motion)
- argument from motion based on causation
it is: - some things in the world are in motion e.g. a football rolling on the ground
- 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
- something in motion moves from potential to actuality, e.g. a radiator turning from cold to hot
- if A is put in motion by B then something else (C) must have put B in motion and so on
- if the chain goes on infinitely then there is no first mover
- if there is no first mover, then there is no other mover, so nothing would be in motion
- but things are in motion
- therefore there must be a first mover that exists independently and is not caused by anything else
- the first mover is god
what is Aquinas 2nd way (argument from atemporal causation)
argument from atemporal causation based on causation
- causal principle: every event has a cause
- nothing can be the cause of itself (otherwise it would have to be prior to itself which is impossible)
- the order of efficient causes cannot go on infinitely, otherwise there would be no first cause and no subsequent causes which is false
- therefore there must be a first efficient cause, which is not itself caused
- this first cause is god
it is an argument from atemporal causation because aquinas is seeking a first cause that is sustaining the chain of causes and effects continuously, not simply before the event in time)
- caused the effects of time and space so cannot be inside time
what is Aquinas 3rd way (argument from contingency)
argument from contingency (dependent)
it relies on the distinction between necessary and contingent existence
- necessary existence is something which does not come into/out of existence, it is self-sufficient and a sustaining first cause
- contingent existence comes into/out of existence, its existence is contingent on something else
P1 things in the world are contingent (coming into and out of existence)
P2 if everything was contingent, then it is possible that there was nothing in existence
P3 if there was once nothing, then there would be nothing now, but this is false
C1 therefore there must be something that did not exist contingently - there is one thing which is necessary
C2 this necessary being is god
what is Descartes cosmological argument based on his continuing existence (from causation)
he asks wether the fact of his own continuing existence as a conscious being must be enough to show that there must be a God
P1 the cause of my existence could be a) myself b) I have always existed c) my parents d) a being less than God or e) God
P2 I can’t have caused my own existence because I would have created myself perfect, nor can I sustain my own existence
P3 I can’t have existed forever for I would be aware of this
P4 my parents may be the cause of my physical existence but not of me as a thinking mind, and they don’t sustain me each moment
P5 I can’t be created by a being less than god, as I have the idea of god inside of me and there must be at least as much reality in the cause as the effect (causal principle)
C therefore god could have created me
- process of elimination
what is Leibniz argument from the principle of sufficient reason (argument from contingency)
- Leibniz argument is based on the principle of sufficient reason: no fact can ever be true unless there is a sufficient reason why things are as they are and not otherwise
- he also calls upon the distinction between necessary and contingent facts
- necessary facts are true by definition (analytical truths) e.g. 2+2=4 you do not need to go beyond the concepts involved to understand the truth.
- contingent facts can’t be explained in the same way.
- a sufficient reason can be given to every contingent event in the world, but to explain one contingent fact just by reference to another doesn’t give a sufficient explanation.
- Leibniz says that all the contingent facts in the world can never be fully explained by reference to other contingent facts alone, but only reference to a necessary fact or being (one that is self-explaining) and that being is god.
explain an issue for cosmological arguments of the possibility of an infinite series.
- many cosmological arguments say there can’t be an infinite chain of causes, but is this true?
- Calculus and the development of maths has shown that an infinite series is mathematically possible, due to the concept of ‘transfinite’ numbers which are larger than finite numbers but not absolutely infinite.
- there may be a scientific possibility: the Big Bang hypothesis says that perhaps the universe expands but eventually collapses in on itself before another Big Bang, and so on for infinity.
the multiverse hypothesis says that there may be multiple universes which exist in parallel, and assume the possibility of infinite time and space. this undermines the claim that ‘the universe must have a beginning’ as an infinite universe is a scientific possibility. - an infinite chain has no beginning and so removing the first cause is not something that could happen and the chain continues to exist - no contradiction.
explain an issue with cosmological arguments of Hume’s response to the causal principle.
- Hume’s fork can be used to question the claim that ‘everything has a cause’
- humes fork has two horns:
- matter of fact (posteriori, can be denied, true in relation to how the world is)
- and relations of ideas (priori, cannot be denied without logical contradiction, analytical truths)
- relations of ideas: ‘everything has a cause’ is not a relations of ideas because we can conceive of something which does not have a cause. e.g. a chair that springs into existence for no reason, it is unusual, but not a logical contradiction like a 4-sided triangle.
- matters of fact: ‘everything has a cause’ cannot be a matter of fact either’. Hume says 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 actually see A causing B, just the ‘constant conjunction’ of A and B.
- in the specific event of the creation of the universe, we only ever experience event B (the continued existence of the universe.) and never what came before (the thing that caused the universe to exist).
- this casts doubt on the premise of cosmological arguments that claim that ‘everything has a cause’.
what is an issue for cosmological arguments that the argument commits the fallacy of composition (Russell)
- the fallacy of composition says that because parts of something have a property, the entire thing must also have that property.
- Russell uses an example to demonstrate the flaw in this;
P1 every individual human has a mother
P2 the human species is composed of individual humans
C therefore the whole species has one mother - in this example ‘having a mother’ is the property common to individuals and so we infer from this that the whole human species as a whole has a mother, but this conclusion is obviously false.
- Russell says that cosmological arguments are guilty of this same fallacy
P1 every event that happened has a cause
P2 the universe is composed of these single events
C therefore the universe as a whole must have a cause - Just because individual events require an explanation we cannot conclude that the universe itself also has the same property
- applying this to Leibniz cosmological argument: just because everything within the universe requires sufficient reason to explain its existence, it doesn’t mean that the universe itself requires sufficient reason to explain its existence.
explain the issue for cosmological arguments of the impossibility of a necessary being (Hume and Russell)
- Hume and Russell aim to show that the concept of necessity cannot be applied to things that exist, and so a necessary being is not possible.
- Hume: says that nothing that is distinctly conceivable entails a contradiction. for any being that we can conceive of as existent, we can also conceive of as non-existent.
- Therefore there is no being whose non-existence entails a contradiction.
- There is nothing that exists, which exists necessarily. ‘God does not exist’ is not a contradiction, so ‘God exists’ is not a necessary truth.
- Russel: says that the concept of ‘necessary’ can only be applied to analytical propositions.
- An analytical proposition is self-contradictory to deny. It is not self-contradictory to say ‘God does not exist’.
- Therefore ‘God exists’ is not analytic and is not a necessary proposition.
