Cosmological Arguments Flashcards
What are the 6 cosmological arguments?
- Descartes
- Aquinas’ 1st way- Argument from ‘motion’. Aquinas means the ‘change’ from potential to actual, the mover which causes the change has to be actual.
- Aquinas’ 2nd way- Argument from ‘atemporal’ or ‘sustaining’ causation. There must be a first sustaining cause that depends on nothing else.
- Aquinas’ 3rd way- Argument from contingency. If everything existed contingently then nothing would begin to exist.
- Kalam argument- Argument that everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist- Therefore it has a cause.
- Leibniz- Argument for sufficient reason every true fact has an explanation that provides a sufficient reason for why things are the way they are.
What are they key features of cosmological arguments?
- Appeal to our basic intuition that the existence of the universe needs an explanation.
- Proponents of this type of argument seek that explanation outside of this universe.
- They argue that is an external source/cause that began the universe (God) and this cause (being the first cause) doesn’t need an explanation.
- Cosmological arguments are built upon a posteriori premises and take the form of logical deductive arguments.
Outline and explain the kalam cosmological Argument.
-The kalam Argument puts together about causation, time and the world. It is thus referred to as an ‘argument from
Temporal causation’.
-Formal Argument:
P1. The universe is composed of temporal phenomena-things that occur and exist in time- that are preceded by other temporal phenomena that are ordered in time.
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, there is a cause of the existence of the universe.
What is the analysis of the kalam argument?
- We can accept p1- that we exist in a universe in time and things that occur happen in time order.
- We can question p2- the universe is temporal so cannot have always existed. If it had always existed there would be an infinite regress.
- We have to prove an infinite regress is impossible for this argument to hold.
- We can use the example of the infinite hotel. This example shows that whilst an infinite regress is logically possible, it’s not something that is possible in reality. It doesn’t work.
Overview of Aquinas’ 3 ways and define: necessary being, contingent being, temporal cause, sustaining cause.
- The 1st/2nd way are forms of causal cosmological arguments; they seek to show that certain general features of the world are dependent upon a higher, unmoved/uncaused cause.
- The 3rd way is a form of the cosmological argument based upon the contingency of the universe.
- It aims to show the universe is dependent on a necessary being.
- These 3 ways are examples of vertical cosmological arguments. Seek to explain what sustains the universe.
- Necessary being: A being that must exist and for it to be impossible for it not to exist.
- Contingent being: A bring that can either exist or cease to exist.
- Temporal cause: A cause that brings about its effect at a time, such that the effect carried after the cause and can continue after the cause ceases.
- Sustaining cause: A cause that brings about its effect continuously, such that the effect depends on the continued existence of the being (Atemporal).
Outline and explain Aquinas’ First way.
- Change can only be brought about by something that is actual. E.g. pan on a hob getting hot.
- ‘Motion’ means a change from potential to actual, with a ‘mover’ bringing about this change.
- This chain can’t go on for infinity so there must be a first cause which causes change but is not itself changed.
- This ‘first cause of change’ is God. And is what Aquinas means by his prime mover argument.
- He is the only being possible of only ever being ontologically a priori, always being actual whilst everything else moves from potential to actual.
Outline and explain Aquinas’ second way. Include what Aristotle’s 4 causes are which he draws upon.
- Aristotle’s 4 causes:
1) Material- Is what something is made out of, the material cause also explains the general side of properties of something.
2) Efficient- Why? Creator/Designer.
3) Formal- Structure/ Design/Shape.
4) Final- The purpose/ End. - Aquinas’ aim is to explore the ‘efficient cause’ the ‘why?’ Behind the change that is happening in the universe.
- This efficient cause will always lead back to a first efficient cause I.e. God.
What Objection based on contradiction can we raise against Aquinas’ first and second way? And what would be the response to this? And then how could we challenge the response?
- Aquinas is seeking to present an argument for the Abrahamic god.
- When we examine his first and second ways they seem to rest on a contradiction. Aquinas states that everything must have a cause and nothing causes itself.
- But then concludes that something must exist that can be the cause of itself, namely God! The original argument is contradicted by this conclusion.
- Defenders of the Argument might try and say that this is exactly what the reductio ad absurdum is trying to prove.
- There has to be an exception to the rule because if there wasn’t there wouldn’t be a first cause and thus no universe.
- This first cause, must be without a cause itself and the only thing that can exist in this way is the supreme being god.
- A critic could respond to this and say why make god this exception? Couldn’t we, on those grounds make the entire universe itself the exception.
- In other words we would be saying that nothing that occurs in the universe is its own cause, but the universe itself can be its own cause. Why do we need god at all?
What Objection does Hume raise using the ‘causal principle’?
- The causal principle is the claim that everything has a cause. Hume argues that it is not analytic.
- Temporal cause- is not analytic
- Something May exist without a cause.
- We have good reason to think not.
- But you can’t apply this to the whole universe.
- Sustaining cause- not everything needs a sustained cause e.g. physical particles.
- Also they could be a succession of temporal causes
What is the multiverse theory as a criticism of arguments from causation? What is the first part of this?
- Proponents of cosmological arguments claim that there cannot be an infinite series of events with no beginning.
- We can invoke scientific knowledge, Big Bang 14 billion years ago, clearly a beginning so infinite regress is impossible.
- But, The first problem is it deals with temporal causes- a sequence of causes in time- not sustaining causes.
- The fact it has a beginning shows it was potential and then was brought into actuality. So there must be something actual that it’s beginning depends on. An infinite regress is possible!
What is the second part of the response (in relation to multiverse) to causation arguments? And why infinite regress ultimately fails.
- Even If this universe has a cause, perhaps it was caused by a previous universe, and so on indefinitely.
- Another theory in contextual science argues we might just be one aspect of an infinite ‘multiverse’.
-But could there be an infinite series of causes in this sense? When we explore the logic like we have done before it seems like infinity cannot actually exist. As an idea we can form a concept of it, but it seems it can’t really exist?
Outline and explain Aquinas’ third way.
-This Argument appeals to ‘contingency’ and ‘necessity’.
P1. Things in the universe must 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 the same time, there was nothing in existence.
P3. If at the same 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.
What is the analysis of Aquinas’ 3rd way?
- Why does Aquinas draw the conclusion that this being is God?
- Well when we consider contingent beings we will see that:
- Their existence is dependent upon other things.
- They have a ‘self life’, it came into existence and will one day cease.
- They might have been different or have never even existed if the past were any different.
- In contrast a necessary being:
- Has an existence that is independent of everything else.
- Is eternal; it has always existed and will never cease to exist.
- Has to exist; it is impossible for the circumstances to be different.
-In Aquinas’ reasoning, only God meets these requirements.
Outline and explain Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason.
- Based on causation. A sufficient reason can be given as to why any object exists or why any event occurs.
- The key premise in his argument is that all contingent facts in the world can never be fully explained with reference to other contingent facts alone. We must appeal to a necessary being (God).
- His PSR is an epistemic claim in that humans seek reasons for events in the world.
- It is also a metaphysical claim in that it seeks to clarify that every event in the world occurs for a reason.
- The opposite of necessary truths is impossible and this is what makes it a necessary truth.
What is the criticism of Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason based on equating laws of thought with laws of the word?
- There is some philosophical dispute about whether laws of thought should be equated with laws of reality.
- Just because something is not conceivable, does that automatically mean that it is not possible.
- Applying this to the principle of sufficient reason:
- Just because we mentally conceive that every fact has a sufficient reason for being that way, it doesn’t follow that it actually is that way in reality.
