Cosmological Arguments Flashcards
The Kalam Argument
- Form of argument that depends on the impossibility of an infinite regress of causes backwards in time due to the paradoxical nature of an actually existing infinity
P1: All things that begin to exist, have a cause of their existence
P2: Actual infinites cannot exist
P3: The universe cannot be infinite, so it must have a beginning
P4: If the universe has a beginning, then it has a cause
P5: If something is caused, it is either because it occurs naturally or is willed into existence
P6: Natural laws did not exist before the universe, so it must have been willed into existence
C: Therefore, there must be a God that willed the universe into existence
Quantum Physics Objection to Kalam Argument and reply
Quantum physics demonstrates that electrons can pass out of existence at one point and come back into existence at another without explaining what causes them to come back exactly where they do. In other words there are some things in the universe which have no cause
Reply: Craig responds by saying this does not disprove the argument and there are at least some prior necessary conditions for the electrons reappearing and this can be estimated on probabilities, whereas there are no priori conditions at the start of the universe.
Aquinas’ First Way (Motion)
P1: Everything that moves must have a mover (either physically moves or moves in the sense of changing)
P2: Everything has the potential to be moved/changed, but needs an outside force to make it actual. Nothing moves itself
P3: If there is no first mover, then there is no other mover, and so nothing is in motion.
P4: The universe as a whole does move and change. As there cannot be an infinite chain of movers it must therefore have an outside force affecting it.
C: The unmoved mover that exists outside time/space is God
Aquinas’ Second Way (Atemporal Causation)
- Demonstrates through the existence of causes in the universe that there must be an unpaused first cause i.e God
P1: We find, in the world, causes and effects
P2: Nothing can be the cause of itself. (If it were, it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible)
P3: If the chain of causes were infinite and there were no first cause there would be no effects, i.e no world.
C1: Therefore, given that there are causes, there cannot be an infinite regress of causes.
C2: Therefore, there must be a first cause, which is not itself caused- God.
Aquinas’ Third Way ( Contingency and Necessity )
- This argument relies on the idea of contingency in the sense of being dependant on other things
P1: Things in the universe exist contingently i.e depend on something else to exist
P2: If everything exists contingently, then it is possible that at some time, there was nothing in existence.
P3: If at some time, nothing was in existence, nothing could begin to exist as there cannot be an infinite chain of contingent things.
P4: Things did begin to exist
C1: Therefore, there is something that does not exist contingently, but must exist.
C2: This necessary being is God
Descartes’ Cosmological Argument
P1: My existence as a thinking thing with a clear and distinct idea of God needs explaining. There are four possibilities for the cause of my existence as a thinking thing a)myself b)I have always existed c)my parents d)God
P2: I cannot have caused myself to exist as then I would have to be perfect (in order to have my idea of perfection as I cannot have caused this idea because an imperfect being an only sometimes perfect could cause the idea of perfection as the cause of anything must be as great as its effect)
P3: Neither have I always existed for then I would be aware of this
P4: So the cause of my existence must lie outside of myself
P5: My parents may be the cause of my physical existence but not of me as a thinking mind (for the reason I cannot be the cause of myself as I am not perfect)
P6: The cause is either caused by something else or it’s own cause
P7: There cannot be an infinite regression of causes
C: Therefore, only God, an unpaused and necessary being, could create and sustain me
Criticisms of Descartes’ Cosmological Argument
-Includes the accusation that he has not proved that it is a perfect God which is the cause of his conscious existence, it may very well be something less than perfect- a playful demon for example
- Further, Descartes famously invokes a circular argument to establish his conclusion-he argues that clear and distinct ideas are a guide to truth, yet from this he goes on to establish the truth of God’s existence and then say that God would not deceive him in his clear and distinct ideas as God is perfectly benevolent and so not a deceiver. This argument is circular.
Leibniz’s Cosmological Argument from the Principle of Sufficient Reason
P1: PSR, every true fact has an explanation that provides a sufficient reason for why things are as they are and not otherwise.
P2: Contingent things exist
P3: The series of contingent facts cannot be sufficiently explained by any contingent fact
P4: So the explanation of the series of contingent facts lies outside of that series of contingent facts
C: Therefore, only God, a necessary being, can ultimately explain the existence of contingent things.
Principle of sufficient reason
Every true fact has an explanation that provides a sufficient reason for why things are as they are and not otherwise
Hume’s criticism to the ‘causal principle’
- The only things that can 100% be certain and necessary are analytic statements that Hume calls ‘relations of ideas’
- If you deny these, you get a contradiction-they can’t be conceived of any other way.
- However, to say ‘everything that has a beginning has a cause’ it is a matter of fact
- It makes sense to say some things do not have a cause.
- He believes it is perfectly sensible to imagine something occurring without a cause.
- I can therefore imagine a beginning of existence without a cause, so it follows therefore, that it is at least possible that the universe could be uncaused
- Therefore, we reject the premise in the cosmological arguments that all things that begin have causes.
Reply to Hume’s criticism against the causal principle
Elizabeth Anscombe points out that this does not follow as to imagine a rabbit coming into existence without also imagining the parent rabbit does not mean rabbits can just pop into existence in reality.
- We can understand things coming into existence with an unknown or unusual cause, but not no cause at all.
- Everything in reality suggests things that exist are brought into existence by something else
Russells criticism of the Cosmological argument
- Commits a fallacy of composition
- Argues that as each thing in the universe has a cause it must therefore be true that the universe as a whole has a cause.
- He compares this to the example of mothers- just because each human being has a mother, this does not mean that humanity as a whole has a mother. Likewise, just because each individual thing in the universe has a cause, this does not mean that the universe as a whole has a cause
Reply to Russells criticism of the Cosmological Argument
- This does not show that this must be a fallacy of composition. It is a fallacy to say the bricks are small so the wall must be small, but not to say the bricks are solid so the wall is solid.
- There is an essential similarity between the part and the whole and this might be true of the universe as well as the things within the universe.
Hume’s criticism of Aquinas’ Third Way
- No such thing as necessary existence
- For Hume all important knowledge is based on and justified by experience.
- For Hume, we can talk about a necessary statement, but not a necessary being, this is because any claim about what exists in the world could be imagined otherwise.
- The claim ‘God exists’ is not, for Hume, like the claim ‘Bachelors are unmarried’ where to imagine otherwise is to contradict yourself
- Therefore God cannot be a necessary being
What is the arguement for the possibility of an infinite series against the cosmological argument
- In Aquinas’ First and Third Way he argues that an infinite regress of causes is impossible, requiring a necessary being (God) to explain existence
- Critics argue that an infinite series of contingent events is logically possible and does not necessarily require a first cause
- For example, in mathematics set theory demonstrates that actual infinities (e.g infinite sequences of numbers) ate logically coherent. Some philosophers extend this to reasoning to the physical universe, arguing that an infinite chain of events could be possible
