Cosmological Arguments (God) Flashcards
What does cosmology mean? + general strategies
cosmos -> universe
-> deductive + priori
= Cosmology looks at the origin of the universe to demonstrate God’s existence.
Split into…
a) causation -> Everything in the universe has a cause, the universe must have a cause and this cause is God!
b) contingency -> Is to depend on something. Therefore, the universe must depend on God for existence. (Everything in the universe is contingent so depends on a necessary God)
The 6 cosmological arguments divided into two groups are…
a. Arguments from causation
-> The Kalam arg/William Craig
-> Descartes’ arg from his continuing existence
-> Aquinas 1st way (motion)
-> Aquinas 2nd way (atemporal causation)
b. Arguments from contingency
-> Aquinas 3rd way (contingency)
-> Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason
infinite regress/series + why is it undesirable for cosmological arguments
= an explanation that stretches into infinity (like a kid that always asks ‘why).
- there is no start or end to causation, it goes on indefinitely
- we cannot reach any answer as to where the universe came from .
-THEREFORE, we can never establish a foundation upon which to build our knowledge of the world.
ISSUE-> gives no explanations, there is no starting point (it is continually being deferred)
The Kalam Arg by William Craig (an arg for causation)
P1: Everything that begins to exists has a cause of its existence.
P2: The universe began to exist.
C1: Therefore, the universe had a cause of its existence.
(then he added…)
P3: If the universe had a cause, then it must be an uncaused, timeless, non-corporeal, all-powerful and personal cause. This only describes God.
C2: Therefore, God exists.
The 5 criteria explained…
1) all powerful -> the first cause would have brought the entirety of physical reality into existence, without any material existing prior. Therefore, this could only be achieved by a supremely powerful cause.
2) personal -> Since we cannot explain the first cause scientifically, we can only explain it personally (ie positing a being who made a decision).
2) timeless -> If the first cause is uncaused, and so has no prior cause, it cannot have a beginning.
3) non-corporeal -> The first cause must have existed outside the universe and be changeless. If it were physical (and so changing) it would be part of this universe.
5) uncaused -> If there us no infinite causation, there must be an uncaused first cause. (Ockham’s Razor ; we should not posit causes beyond necessary).
APenguinThoughtNiceUggs
Descartes’ Cosmological Argument
P1: From my existing at one time it doesn’t follow that I exist at later times.
P2: I am aware of no power in me which causes my continued existence.
C1: I am not responsible for my continued existence, so the cause must be external.
C2: The external cause is either (a) smt less perfect than God (parents) or (b) God.
P3: I am a thinking thing with an idea of a perfect God.
P4: A cause must have as much reality as its effect.
C3: My parents do not explain my continued existence as a thinking thing.
C4: The cause of my continued existence as a thinking thing must be a singular, perfect God.
C5: Therefore, God exists.
P3 explained
= asserts his existence as a thinking thing (mind). Part of the reason why he rejects his parents as a possible cause - aside from infinite regress - is that they are imperfect minds at best, but also bodies. It is Perfectly conceivable for them to cause his body, but he is not essentially his body.
- In essence, He is a mind. So, his mind can only be caused by another mind, and since he has a perfect idea of God (and A cause must have as much reality as the effect) only God (as a mind) can be the cause for his continued existence.
HOWEVER-> If we can argue substance dualism is false, for example we are not ‘thinking things’ instead, we are a body. Then our parents can act as the cause of our existence.
Explain Aquinas’ : The First Way/ Arg from ‘motion’
P1: things in the world are in motion.
P2: Movement is a reduction from potentiality to actuality.
P3: Nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality except by something already in actuality.
P4: The same thing cannot be both potentially and actually in one state.
C1: Therefore, a thing that is moved cannot move itself and what is moved must be moved by another.
P5: There cannot be an infinite regress.
C2: Therefore, there must be an unmoved mover (prime mover), which is God.
Actuality -> the state a thing actually is in (eg ice is a frozen solid)
Potentiality -> the state a thing could be in (eg ice could melt into liquid)
= Since everything in the universe is a constant state of motion (change), there cannot be a first efficient cause as something would be needed to cause that motion (like infinite regress). Rather, there is a final cause that pulls all things towards it (prime mover -> magnet not dominoes)
What is our common understanding of motion?
Cartesian motion: Position and movement of objects from A to B in objective, 3 dimensional space.
Aquinas’ Second Way (atemporal causation)
P1: We know through experience that the world contains efficient causes.
P2: Nothing can be the efficient cause of itself (If it could, it would exist before itself, which is impossible).
P3: If the series of efficient causes was infinite there would be not be a first efficient cause.
P4: If there was no first efficient cause, then there would be no subsequent efficient causes (contradicting what we know from P1).
C1: Therefore, there is a first efficient cause, and this is what we call God.
C2: Therefore, God exists.
Efficient cause: what caused its existence//that which brings all the causes together and brings it forth
Explain Hume’s objection to the causal principle of cosmological arg
Cosmological arguments rely on the CAUSAL PRINCIPLE: The claim that every effect has a cause (a priori).
Hume’s causation as a constant conjunction: We need repeated experience of the same effect having the same cause to establish cause and effect.
As applied to Hume’s fork…
-> Is the CP a ‘Matter of Fact’ : if we see two events constantly connected we can expect one causes the other. This expectation provides us to establish cause and effect.
-> THEREFORE, as we can never have an experience of God causing the universe, it cannot be a MOF.
-> Is the CP a ‘Relation of Ideas’? : if the CP could be known a priori, denying it would lead to a contradiction. BUT, there are examples of things not having a cause, so it is not a logical contradiction.
-> THEREFORE, the CP cannot be known a priori so cannot be a ROI.
COSMOLOGICAL ARG FAIL AS WE CANNOT KNOW…
-> every event has a cause
-> universe has a cause
-> what caused the universe
Objection to causal arg: an infinite series is possible
- 3 types of possibilities
- Causal arguments rely on the claim that an infinite series is impossible. But there are instances where they are possible…
1) mathematical possibility : numbers can go on forever.
2) scientific possibility : The Big Bang/Big Crunch hypothesis -> the universe expands but eventually collapses in on itself, and so on forever.
3) Multiverse hypothesis: multiple universes with infinite time and space.
= Although untested, if it is a scientific possibility -> undermines that universe must have a beginning
3) An infinite series is a logical possibility
- Aquinas: if motion/causation went back infinitely, would be no start to the chain , and hence no motion/causation at all.
BUT -> confusing a long finite chain of causes (needs a beginning) with an infinite chain of causes (does not have a beginning so ‘removing’ the first cause could not happen).
Aquinas’ Third Way ( arg from contingency)
P1: If everything that exists in the universe is contingent, there would be a time when nothing existed.
P2: If there was a time when nothing existed, there would be nothing now since nothing can come from nothing.
P3: Everything that exists in the universe is contingent.
C1: Therefore, there must have been something that necessarily existed when all contingent things did not (to cause their existence).
P4: A necessary being has its own necessity (relies on nothing else for its existence).
P5: The being which has its own necessity is understand to be God.
C2: Therefore, God exists.
Leibniz’s arg from Sufficient Reason (arg of contingency)
P1: The principle of sufficient reason: every fact has an explanation that provides a sufficient reason for why things are as they are and not otherwise.
P2: There are two kinds of truth: those of reasoning and those of fact;
p2A: Truths of reasoning are necessary and the opposite is impossible. That truth is revealed by analysis (a priori). (Aka Humes relations of ideas)
p2B: Truths of fact are contingent, and the opposite is possible. Cannot explain them without reference to other contingent truths (synthetic a posteriori). -> Matters of fact
C1: Therefore, to provide a sufficient reason for any given contingent fact, we must look outside the sequence of contingent facts.
C2: Therefore, the sufficient reason for the contingent facts must be a necessary substance that explains its own existence.
C3: This being is God, and so God exists.
Fallacy of composition as an objection to arguments from contingency- RUSSELL
= Mistake in reasoning that the properties of individuals will also be the same as the properties of the whole they can constitute. For example an individual piece of paper is easily torn light and flexible however a stack of paper is not easily torn, heavy and as inflexible.
eg 3 (odd) + 7(odd) = 10 (even) Therefore the whole is not the same as its parts
APPLIED…
Aquinas-> Just because individual effects are caused by efficient causes, but it doesn’t follow that the collection of those individual causes have a cause. The universe could just exist and that’s it. It might even always have existed/ be infinite.
Leibniz -> Just because every contingent fact has a sufficient reason, it does not follow that the collection of those contingent facts (universe) has a sufficient reason for why it is the way it is. The universe could just exist, and that’s it. It may even be infinite.
Hume and Russells objections that a necessary being is impossible. (To arg from contingency)
HUME:
P1: Nothing is necessary unless it’s contrary implies a contradiction.
P2: Nothing that is distinctly conceivable implies a contradiction.
P3: Whatever we conceive as existing, we can also conceive as not existing.
C1: Therefore, there is no being whose non existence implies a contradiction.
C2: Therefore, there is no being whose existence is necessary.
RUSSELL:
P1: The concept of ‘necessary’ can only be applied to truth of reason / relations of ideas, which are analytic propositions.
P2: An analytic proposition is one which is self contradictory to deny.
P3: It is not self contradictory to say “God does not exist”.
C1: Therefore, “God exists” is not analytic and is not a necessary proposition.
C2: Therefore, it is impossible for a necessary being (God) to exist.
Difference between Aquinas’ first efficient cause and Aristotle’s prime mover
efficient cause : things cannot cause themselves so cannot be its own efficient cause; we also understand there cannot be an infinite chain of efficient causes since there would be no first cause, no second and so on. (eg a causes b causes c)
prime mover : is NOT an efficient cause , but a final one which is eternally in motion.
=the pm PULLS things towards it (as a telos/end) whereas God pushes things forward (as an efficient cause)
