Cosmological Arguments Flashcards
What are cosmological arguments about?
Cosmological start their observation that everything depends on something else for its existence. They then apply this to the universe itself. The argument is that the universe depends on something else to exist — God
What is infinite regress?
It is the idea that if the universe had no beginning, then there would be an infinite chain of past events — which many argue is impossible.
What is Kalam’s cosmological argument?
P1. The universe is composed out of temporal phenomena — things that are ordered in time
P2. The infinite regress of temporal phenomena is impossible
C1. Therefore, universe must have a beginning
P3. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
C2. Therefore, the universe has a cause — God
More simply
P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2. The universe began to exist.
C1. Therefore, the universe has a cause — God
What are Aquinas’s 3 versions of Cosmological arguments
- Argument from motion
- Argument from causation
- Contingency argument
What is Aquinas’s argument from motion? (1st way)
P1. Some things in the world are in motion E.g. a football rolling along the ground
P2. 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
P3. If A is put in motion by B, then something else (C) must have put B in motion, and so on
P4. If this chain goes on infinitely, then there is no first mover
P5. If there is no first mover, then there is no other mover, and so nothing would be in motion
P6. But things are in motion
C1. Therefore, there must be a first mover
C2. The first mover is God
So basically the argument states that motion exists, and everything in motion must have been set in motion by something else. This leads to a chain of movers, but an infinite regress would mean no first mover, resulting in no motion at all. Since motion clearly exists, there must be a first, unmoved mover—identified as God.
What is Aquinas’s argument from causation? (2nd way)
P1. Everything in the universe is subject to cause and effect E.g. throwing a rock caused the window to smash — C is caused by B, and B is caused by A, and so on
P2. If this chain of causation was infinite, there would be no first cause
P3. If there were no first cause, there would be no subsequent causes or effects
P4. But there are causes and effects in the world
C1. Therefore, there must have been a first cause
C2. The first cause is God
Essentially the same as the argument form motion, except it talks about the first cause of effects, rather than the first mover
What is Aquinas’s argument from contingency? (3rd way)
Aquinas’ third way relies on a distinction between necessary and contingent existence.
KEY IDEA — contingent things depend on something necessary for their existence.
Things that exist contingently are things that might not have existed.
For example, the tree in the field wouldn’t exist if someone hadn’t planted the seed years ago. So, the tree exists contingently. Its existence is contingent on someone planting the seed.
Necessary existence refers to something that must exist and cannot fail to exist
P1. Everything that exists contingently did not exist at some point
P2. If everything exists contingently, then at some point nothing existed
P3. If nothing existed, then nothing could begin to exist
P4. But since things did begin to exist, there was never nothing in existence
C1. Therefore, there must be something that does not exist contingently, but that exists necessarily
C2. This necessary being is God
So essentially, the argument states that if everything were contingent, there would have been a time when nothing existed. But since things do exist, there must be something that exists necessarily rather than contingently. This necessary being is identified as God.
What is Descartes’ cosmological argument?
Descartes knows that he is a thinking think, that he exists. He questions himself what is the cause of his existence.
It is either 1. Myself 2. I have always existed 3. My parents 4. God
- Myself — I can’t be the cause of my own existence because if I was, I would have given myself all perfections (i.e. I would have caused myself to be omnipotent, omniscient, etc. In other words, I would have made myself God).
- I have always existed — I can’t always have existed, because then I would be aware of this. Plus, there has to be something that sustains my existence – the fact that I existed a moment ago does not at all guarantee that I should continue existing.
- My parents — my parents might be the cause of my physical appearance, but they are neither the cause of my mental appearance nor they sustain my existence.
Furthermore, there can’t be an infinite regress of causes: If my parents were the cause of my existence, what caused them? And so on. - God — God is the ultimate cause of my existence, the only option left.
What is Leibniz sufficient reason argument? (Contingency argument)
Leibniz‘s argument is premised on his principle of sufficient reason. The principle of sufficient reason says that every truth has an explanation of why it is the case:
1. Truths of reasoning: another word for necessary or analytic truths
2. Truths of fact: another word for contingent or synthetic truths
The sufficient reason for truths of reasoning (i.e. analytic 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.
It is harder to fully explain contingent truths because each explanation leads to further questions. For example, explaining a tree’s existence by saying someone planted a seed raises further questions about why the person did so, why seeds exist, and why the laws of physics allow for it. This chain of contingent explanations can continue indefinitely.
To escape the infinite regress of contingent explanations, we need a foundation beyond contingent facts themselves. Leibniz argues that only a necessary substance—God—can provide the ultimate reason for all contingent truths.
What is a “Is a first cause necessary” problem?
Most of the cosmological arguments assume that there can’t be ‘an infinite chain of causes’ or ‘infinite regress’. But we can respond by rejecting this claim.
Why must there a first cause? — Perhaps there is just be an infinite chain of causes stretching back forever, as well as an infinite amount of universes before this one
What is the response to the ‘Is a first cause necessary’ problem?
If an infinite chain of causes existed, an infinite amount of time would have already passed. But if that were true, the universe couldn’t get older since infinity + 1 is still infinity. Yet, the universe is aging (e.g., 2020 is after 2019). Therefore, an infinite chain of causes is impossible — there must be a starting point
What is Hume’s objection to causation?
Another assumption of many of the cosmological arguments above is something like ‘everything has a cause’.
But Hume’s fork can be used to question this claim that ‘everything has a cause’:
1. Relation of ideas — It’s not a relation of ideas because we can conceive of something existing without a cause (e.g., a chair appearing spontaneously). There is no logical contradiction.
2. Matter of fact — It’s not a matter of fact either, since we never directly experience causation—only the repeated sequence of events (constant conjunction), not a necessary connection between them. Even if we see B follow A a million times, we never experience A causing B, just the ‘constant conjunction’ of A and B. Same with the universe, we only experience the event itself.
This all casts doubt on the premise that “Everything has a cause”
What is Russel’s fallacy of composition?
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 all the players on a football team are good, this doesn’t guarantee the team is good. For example, the players might not work well together.
Applying this to the cosmological argument, we can raise an objection: just because everything within the universe has a cause, doesn’t guarantee that the UNIVERSE ITSELF has a cause. Russell says: “the universe is just there, and that’s all.”
What is a possible response to Russel’s fallacy of composition?
P1. Everything within the universe exists contingently—that is, each thing within the universe could have not existed.
P2. If everything inside the universe didn’t exist, the universe wouldn’t exist either—since the universe is simply the sum of its parts, the existence of the universe is tied to the existence of its individual components.
C1. Therefore, the universe itself must exist contingently, just like the things within it.
C2. Therefore, the universe requires sufficient reason to explain its existence, because it depends on its contingent parts, and something contingent must have an explanation for its existence.
So basically, the universe is made up of things that exist contingently, meaning they could have not existed. If everything inside the universe didn’t exist, the universe wouldn’t either. So, the universe itself is contingent and needs an explanation for why it exists, just like everything in it.
What is a possible response to Russel’s fallacy of composition?
P1. Everything within the universe exists contingently—that is, each thing within the universe could have not existed.
P2. If everything inside the universe didn’t exist, the universe wouldn’t exist either—since the universe is simply the sum of its parts, the existence of the universe is tied to the existence of its individual components.
C1. Therefore, the universe itself must exist contingently, just like the things within it.
C2. Therefore, the universe requires sufficient reason to explain its existence, because it depends on its contingent parts, and something contingent must have an explanation for its existence.
So basically, the universe is made up of things that exist contingently, meaning they could have not existed. If everything inside the universe didn’t exist, the universe wouldn’t either. So, the universe itself is contingent and needs an explanation for why it exists, just like everything in it.
Is the first cause God? — criticism of cosmological arguments? — The impossibility of a necessary being
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.
So, even if the cosmological argument is sound, it doesn’t necessarily follow that God exists.
The impossibility of a necessary being (Hume and Russell)
P1. Nothing that is distinctly conceivable implies a contradiction (nothing I can conceive of my mind’s eye separate from something else implies a contradiction e.g a full or empty mug — I couldn’t distinctly conceive of it being full and empty at the same time — 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
What is the response to “Is the first cause God” objection
- This objection doesn’t work so well against Descartes’ version because he specifically reasons that the God is the only possible cause.
- 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.
