Cosmological arguments

Question 1

What are the cosmological arguments

Answer 1

• A posteriori
• Synthetic
• Inductive
• Arguments claiming that all things in nature depend on something else for existence
• Therefore the universe depends on a necessary being to exist which is God

Question 2

The Kalam (speech) Argument (intro)

Answer 2

• A posteriori argument with deductive reasoning
• Developed by al-Ghazali
• Reformed by William Lane Craig

Question 3

Outline the Kalam argument

Answer 3

1. Everything with a beginning must have a cause
2. The universe has a beginning
3. Therefore the universe must have a cause
4. Scientific explanations cannot provide causal account for the universe so the cause must be a personal cause

Question 4

Kalam Argument explained

Answer 4

• The 1st premise is that everything with a beginning must have a cause
• William Lane Craig would argue that this premise is intuitively obvious
• Nothing can come into existence from nowhere and human nature assumes causes for everything that happens
• The 2nd premise is that the universe has a beginning
• The other explanation for the universe was that actual infinities exist
• Actual infinities suggest that the universe had no beginning or end
• However the idea of actual infinity seems to be impossible or incoherent
• E.g imagine you took out every other book from a library which contains an infinite number of books and made a pile of these books somewhere else
• You would still be left with 2 infinite piles of books
• This does not make sense
• Therefore actual infinities are philosophically illogical
• The 3rd premise is that the universe must have a cause
• The big bang theory supports the claim of a finite universe with a beginning
• If we accept premise 1 and 2 then we must accept premise 3 (that the universe has a cause )
• The 4th premise is that the cause of the universe is personal
• We cannot look to scientific explanations to see what caused the universe
• Therefore we are left with the idea that the universe’s existence is due to a supernatural cause of immense power
• This cause is God

Question 5

Criticisms of the Kalam argument

1.Accepting the universe without explanation

Answer 5

• Hume argues that cosmological arguments attempt to explain why the universe was caused
• However they do not go further to explain how God was caused
• If we are satisfied that God does not need a cause:
• Then we can simply accept that the universe exists without a cause or explanation

Question 6

Criticisms of the Kalam argument

2.Quantum physics

Answer 6

• Russell disagrees with the claim that every event is dependent on a preceding event
• He gives evidence of things that have come into existence without a cause:
• The discovery of sub-atomic fluctuations show that they have no inherent cause
• This undermines the cosmological certainty that everything must have a cause
• Therefore we do not need an explanation for the universe
• He argues that the claim ‘God is the first cause’ is meaningless
• He states that ‘the universe is just there, and that is all’

Question 7

What are Aquinas’ three ways

Answer 7

• Aquinas’ 3 ways are concerned with observation and experience
• This makes his 3 ways a posteriori arguments

Question 8

What are Aquinas’ first two ways

Answer 8

• Aquinas’ 1st and 2nd ways of proving God’s existence are both ‘causal’ versions of the cosmological argument
• They both begin by noting that we experience certain features of the universe
• These features are motion or causation
• One alternative is that the universe has always moved forever or that causation always occurred
• Aquinas argues that these explanations are false
• This is because they would lead to an infinite regress of movers or causers
• Because infinite regress is not possible we are left with another explanation
• This is that there is a first cause or mover who is not governed by the same rules that govern causation or motion
• This being would be the source of all causation without itself having a cause or being an unmoved mover
• This being is God

Question 9

Outline Aquinas’ 1st way (argument from motion)

Answer 9

1.There are some things in motion or a state of change (wood burning in fire)
2.Nothing can change or move itself
(everything is a secondary mover)
3.If everything was a secondary mover then there would be an infinite regress of movers
4.If this was true then there would be no prime mover and no subsequent movers-this is false
5.There cannot be an infinite regress of movers so there must be an unmoved prime mover
6.This unmoved prime mover is the source of all motion and is God

Question 10

Outline Aquinas’ 2nd way(argument from causation

Answer 10

1.There is an order of efficient causes and so every event has a cause
2.Nothing can be the cause of itself
3.If there was an infinite regress of causes then there would be no first cause
4.If there was no first cause then there would be no
subsequent causes-this is false
5.There must be a first cause which is the source of all causes-God

Question 11

What is Aquinas’ 3rd way

Answer 11

• This is an argument based on contingency
• Contingency describes how things come into existence and then cease to be
• The existence of contingent things are dependent on certain circumstances
• E.g Neil Armstrong landed on the moon is a contingent truth
• Him landing on the moon was dependent on his birth
• This implies that things are not fixed-they could have been different if the past was different
• Aquinas claims that it is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent
• This is because there must be a necessary being at which all contingent things are dependent upon
• This being is God

Question 12

Outline Aquinas’ 3rd way(argument from contingency)

Answer 12

1. Everything in the world is contingent-they come in and out of existence
2. Given infinite time, there must be a time where all contingent things did not exist- so there was nothing
3. However if this was true then there would be nothing now as nothing can come from nothing-so this is false
4. There not everything can be contingent
5. There must be a necessary being outside of time and space who brings things into existence
6. This being must be God

Question 13

Descartes’ cosmological argument

Answer 13

• Descartes asks what caused him to exist and what sustains his continuous conscience existence
• This is because the only things which he can be sure of exists in his own mind
• This leads him to question what caused his idea of a perfect being and what caused his continuous existence as conscious being
• He could not be the cause of his own existence as the cause of something must be as great as its effect
• He has an idea of a perfect being-God, yet he is an imperfect being
• Therefore he cannot be the cause of his own existence
• He could have not always existed as a conscious being
• This is because his continuation of his existence requires something to sustain his existence
• If he himself sustained his existence then he would be aware of being a self-sustaining conscious being
• However he is not aware of such power
• He could not have been caused by something imperfect such as his parents
• This is because his parents do not sustain him as a conscious being
• His parents lack the power to make him a conscious being

Question 14

Outline Descartes’ cosmological argument

Answer 14

1.I have an idea of a perfect being in my mind
2.The cause must be as great as its effect
3.Therefore I cannot have caused this idea of a perfect being as I am not powerful enough or perfect
4.Therefore the cause must be external
5.Either the external cause is caused by something else
OR is its own cause
6.If the external cause is caused by something else then this other cause must be caused by another cause
6.This leads to an infinite regress of causes-however an infinite regress is not possible
7.Therefore there must be an ultimate cause to avoid the problem of infinite regress
8.Only a perfect being can cause the idea of a perfect being
9.This ultimate cause must have caused the idea of a perfect being within me
10.Therefore the ultimate cause is a perfect being
11.This perfect being is God

Question 15

Kant’s criticisms of the cosmological argument

Answer 15

• The idea of everything having a first cause is limited to the experiences we have had
• We have not experienced the beginning of the universe
• Therefore it is impossible for anyone to have knowledge of what God created or what God is himself

Question 16

Hume’s criticism (incoherent necessary beings)

Answer 16

• There is no being whose non-existence is inconceivable
• Therefore the notion of necessary beings is incoherent
• Even if there was a necessary being it would not be necessary for it to be a God of Classical Theism
• E.g there may be a group of higher beings rather than a single God
• Aquinas’ is guilty of an inductive leap in logic
• His premises fail to lead to a valid conclusion
• He moves from establishing the need for an uncaused causer to identifying this as God
• There is no justification for why the causer must be God
• The argument is circular:
• The argument begins to assume that there is a God
• However the purpose of the argument is to conclude that God exists

Question 17

Coplestone’s cosmological argument(intro)

Answer 17

• Coplestone borrows Aquinas’ idea of contingency and the need for a sufficient external reason
• For the universe
• He debates with Russell about the cosmological argument

Question 18

Outline Coplestone’s cosmological argument

Answer 18

1.There are contingent things in the universe
2.The world is a collection of contingent things-nothing within themselves has a reason for their existence
3.Therefore the world must have external reasons for its existence
•This leads him to 2 conclusions
4.This external reason must be a being that exists-God

Question 19

Russell’s criticism of the cosmological argument

1.Incoherent necessity

Answer 19

• Russell attacks the concept of a necessary being
• This is because only propositions can be necessary
• E.g the statement 2+2=4 is necessary as it cannot not be true in all possible worlds
• The term necessary can only be applied to analytic propositions
• More specifically, propositions that would be self contradictory to deny
• The statement ‘God exists’ is a synthetic statement as it is a claim about existence
• Therefore denying the statement would not be self contradictory
• It is not possible to add existence to the attributes of a being as existence is not a genuine predicate
• A genuine predicate would add valuable information to a concept to enhance our understanding
• E.g the paper is pink
• Existence does not enhance our understanding of a concept
• When we say ‘the paper exists’ this does not enhance our understanding
• We already assumed intuitively that the paper existed

Question 20

Russell’s criticisms of the cosmological argument

2.Fallacy of Composition

Answer 20

• Russell argues that the cosmological arguments are guilty of the fallacy of composition
• For example we know that every human has a mother
• However it is a fallacy (mistake) to conclude that humanity as a species has a mother
• Cause and effects can apply to particular events occurring in the universe
• However it is a mistake to apply the concept to the universe as a whole
• There may be reasons for the cause of individual components of the universe
• However it is a mistake to conclude that the universe as a whole has a singular cause