cosmological arguments Flashcards
the kalam argument
- an argument from temporal causation
p1. the universe is composed of temporal phenomena
p2. an infinite regress of temporal phenomena is impossible
c1. therefore, the universe must have a beginning
p3. everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence
c2. therefore the is a cause of existence in the universe
issue: the possibility of an infinite series
- to claim that the universe has always existed is to claim that an actual infinity is something that exists
- different to talking about the idea of infinity, this claims that something infinite actually exists
- we can generate paradoxes; the universe gets older as time passes, but this couldn’t happen if the universe were infinitely old, if it is infinitely old then it isn’t getting any older as time passes
- it is not possible for an infinite amount of time to have passed, since it’s not an amount
- if it were infinitely old it could never have reached the present
aquinas’ 1st way: from motion
p1. some things in the world undergo change
p2. whatever changed is changed by something
p3. if A is changed by B and B is changed, then B must’ve been changed by something else again
p4. if this goes on to infinity, then there is no first cause of change
p5. to remove a cause is to remove its effect
p6. therefore, if there is no 1st cause of change then there are no other causes for change so nothing changes
c1. therefore, there must be a first cause of change
p7. the first cause of change is god
c2. therefore God exists
aquinas’ 2nd way: from causation
p1. we find, in the world causes and effects
p2. nothing can causally depend on itself
p3. causes follow in logical order, first causally sustains the second, which causally sustains the third
p4. if you remove a cause you remove its effect
c1. therefore, if there if no first cause there will be no other causes
p5. if there is an infinite regress of causes, there is no first cause
c2. therefore, given that there are causes, there cannot be an infinite regress of causes
c3. therefore, there must be a first cause which is not itself caused
p6. god is the first cause
c4. therefore god exists
aquinas’ 3rd way: from contingency
p1. things in the universe exist contingently
p2. if it is possible for something not to exist, then at some time, it does not exist
c1. if everything exists contingently then it is possible that at some point in time, there was nothing in existence
p3. if at some time, nothing was in existence, nothing could begin to exist
c2. since things do exist, there was never nothing in existence
c3. therefore, there is something that does not exist contingently, but must exist
p4. this necessary being is God
c4. God exists
Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason
p1. every true fact has an explanation that provides a sufficient reason for why things are the way they are and not otherwise
p2. there are 2 kinds of truth: reasoning and fact
p3. truths of meaning are necessary and their opposite is possible
p4. truths of fact are contingent and their opposite is possible
c1. each of these further contingent facts also needs to be explained
c2. therefore, when we give explanations of this sort we move no nearer to the goal of completely explaining contingencies
c3. therefore, to provide a sufficient reason for any contingent fact, we must look outside the sequence of contingent facts
c4. therefore, the sufficient reason for contingent facts must be in a necessary substance
p6. this necessary substance is God
p7. this necessary substance is a sufficient reason for all this detail, which is interconnected throughout
c5. so there is only one God and this God is sufficient
Descartes Argument from causation
P1. If I cause my own existence, I would give myself all perfections
P2. I do not have all perfections.
C1. Therefore, I am not the cause of my existence.
P3. A lifespan is composed of independent parts, such that my existing at one time does not entail or cause my existing later.
P4. My existence is not uncaused.
C2. Therefore, some cause is needed to keep me in existence.
P5. I do not have the power to cause my continued existence through time.
C3. Therefore, I depend on something else to exist.
P6. I am a thinking thing and I have the idea of God.
P7. There must be as much reality in the cause as in the effect
C4. Therefore, what causes my existence must be a thinking thing and have the idea of God.
P8. Either what causes me is the cause of its own existence or its existence is caused by another cause.
P9. If its existence is caused by another cause, then the point repeats: this second cause is in turn either the cause of its own existence or its existence is caused by another cause.
P10. There cannot be an infinite sequence of causes.
C5. Therefore, some cause must be the cause of its own existence.
P11. What is the cause of its own existence (and so, directly or indirectly, the cause of my existence) is God.
C6. Therefore, God exists.
C4. Therefore, what causes my existence must be a thinking thing and have the idea of God.
P8. Either what causes me is the cause of its own existence or its existence is caused by another cause.
P9. If its existence is caused by another cause, then the point repeats: this second cause is in turn either the cause of its own existence or its existence is caused by another cause.
P10. There cannot be an infinite sequence of causes.
C5. Therefore, some cause must be the cause of its own existence.
P11. What is the cause of its own existence (and so, directly or indirectly, the cause of my existence) is God.
C6. Therefore, God exists.
Hume’s objection to the causal principle
- the causal principle is the claim that everything has a cause > argument asks if some things could come into existence without being caused
- Hume argues that the causal principle is not analytic, we can deny it without contradicting ourselves
- without contradiction we can assert “something came out of nothing”, logically these claims can be true or false, they aren’t analytic therefore aren’t certain
- if they aren’t analytic then we must know them through experience
- experience cannot establish that a claim holds universally without exception
- so we can’t know for certain that everything, without exception, has a cause
the argument commits the fallacy of composition (Russell)
- 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
- Russell accepts that of any particular thing in the universe, we need an explanation for why it exists, but it is a mistake to apply this to the universe itself
- just because everything in the universe is contingent, it doesn’t follow that the universe is also contingent or needs an explanation
the impossibility of a necessary being (Hume and Russell)
Hume argues:
p1. nothing that is distinctly conceivable implies a contradiction
p2. whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existence
c1. therefore, there is no being whose non-existence implies a contradiction
- Russell agrees, if there were a being that exists necessarily, it would have to be self-contradictory
- but it isn’t self-contradictory to deny the existence of something
- so the concept of a being that exists necessarily is confused
