cosmological arguments Flashcards
Kalan
1) the universe has a beginning
2) everything that has a beginning must have a cause (causal principle)
3) the universe must have a cause
4) this cause cannot be science (laws of nature cannot be the cause as they are a part of the universe)
5) therefore the cause must be personal
6) the cause is God and he exists
Premise one: the idea of an infinite universe doesn’t make sense. it doesn’t align with logic. consider a hotel with infinite rooms. even at full capacity there will be another room available. but how is infinity plus one possible.
Premise two: the casual principle. it would be absurd to suppose a city could come to fruition without its builders
Aquinas’ first way
1) everything in the universe undergoes change
2) everything that is changed must have a changer (something cannot cause itself to change)
3) if A is changed by B then B must have been changed by something else
4) if this goes on into infinity there is no first cause
5) if cause is removed then so is its effect
6) if there is no first cause then there cannot be any change afterwards
7) therefore there must be a first cause which is in itself not changed - such a case must be God
8) god exists
Aquinas’ second way
1) we find in the world sustaining causes and effects
2) nothing can casually depend on itself
3) the first cause sustains the second which sustains the third
4) to remove the cause is to remove its effect
5) therefore if there is no first cause there are no other causes too
6) if there is an finite regress there are no other causes
7) therefore there cannot be an infinite regress
8) therefore there must be a first cause which in itself is not caused
9) god is the first cause
10) god exists
premise four: aquinas is trying to illustrate a necessary god. to remove god is to remove all other sustaining causes and effects. much like a candle shedding light on a room. god is the candle, if there is no candle there is no light.
Aquinas’ third way
1) things in the universe exist contingently
2) if the universe exists contingently then there must be a time where nothing existed
3) if there was nothing in existence, then nothing could’ve began to exist
4) there are things in existence
5) therefore there must be something that doesn’t exist contingently
6) that necessary being must be God
7) god exists
Descartes argument based on continuous existence
1) the sustaining causes for my existence is either A) myself B) I have always existed C) my parent D) a being less than god C) god
2) A isn’t true as I would’ve given myself all perfections
3) B isn’t true as I have no recollection of this
4) C isn’t true as they are my temporal cause of my body but not sustaining cause of my mind
5) D isn’t true as I have an idea of God in my mind
6) therefore by elimination only god could’ve created me
premise five: this is Descartes rule that there must be be as much reality in the cause than as the effect. a being lesser than God cannot have put the ideas of God in Descartes head as that being wouldn’t possess the qualities of perfection. that being wouldn’t have enough ‘reality’
Leibniz’s argument from the principle of sufficient reasoning
1) the principle of sufficient reasoning: every true fact has an explanation that gives reason as to why it is like that
2) there are two types of truths: reason and fact
3) truths of reasoning are necessary and can be explained sufficiently analytically
4) truths of fact cannot be explained analytically as they are contingent. they can only be explained by further contingent facts
5) but these further contingent facts must be explained too
6) therefore the explanation must lie outside of the chain as a necessary substance
7) god is the sufficient reason for all contingent facts
8) god must exist
Objection: the possibility of an infinite series
the arguments are treating infinity in the context of finite numbers. for example in the hotel example it presupposes that infinity is a fixed quantity and that adding a room would make it larger. this is not the case. this is as infinity is endless, you cannot add one more of something to endless as it would still be endless.
humes objection to the casual principle
casual principle: everything must have a cause
Hume takes to his fork as says that the casual principle cannot be proved a priori. there is no contradiction in thinking that effect must entail cause. we can conceive of effect without cause, and conceivability entails possibility.
even if we can prove the causal principle a posteriori, there is no guarantee that the universe now works like how it did at the beginning
the argument commits the fallacy of composition - russell
the fallacy of composition is the assumption that whatever is true of a component of the subject, must be true for the subject as a whole too. for instance ‘every man has a mother, therefore the entire human race has a mother’
the ontological arguments assume that just because parts of the universe are contingent and need some explanation of cause, that the entire universe is contingent and needs explanation too. this is wrong
the impossibility of a necessary being
1) if god exists as a relation of ideas then he must be a necessary being as his nonexistence is impossible
2) whatever we can conceive of existing we can also conceive of not existing
3) we can conceive of God not exiting
4) it is possible that god doesn’t exist
5) therefore god isn’t a necessary being
