Cosmological arguments jump to transcendent creator without explanation

Question 1

INTRO - define cosmological

Answer 1

use the universe as evidence for Gods existence ( deductive / a priori)

Question 2

INTRO - define the debate

Answer 2

Rational reason as existence of the Universe must have a sufficient explanation / Does not justify God as the first cause.

Question 3

INTRO - position

Answer 3

Something necessary may have brought things into existence this does not necessarily mean that this first cause was God

Question 4

Section 1: theme

Answer 4

The first way – the unmoved mover

Question 5

Section 1: AO1

FIRST WAY

Answer 5

Aquinas’ first way begins with motion.

P1- Somethings are in motion
P2- Everything in motion has been put into motion by something else
P3- We can’t have infinite regression
P4- Therefore there must be a 1st mover
C- That first mover is God

Question 6

Section 1: AO2 FOR

FIRST WAY

Answer 6

However, as Heraclitus said ‘Nothing comes from nothing’ further supported by Leibinez ‘ex nihlo nihil fit’ from nothing nothing comes,and since everything is around us it must have been caused by something i.e the first mover God

One may argue it comes from rational thought

If one accepted that the universe may have come into motion without an unmoved mover, it would leave unanswered questions of why such a universe bothers to exist. Leibniz – principle of sufficient reason – why is there something rather than nothing

Question 7

Section 1: AO2 AGAINST

FIRST WAY

Answer 7

HHume - infinite regression may be possible. Infinite regression means that things can go back in time forever without a need for causation and is already empirically proven by maths (an a priori concept).
If its possible here, Hume argues, it should be possible elsewhere and the universe could be subject too infinite regression

On the other hand, this is all theorized and there is no empirical evidence to support it

Does not prove that this first mover was God

Question 8

Section 1: AO2 CONCLUSION

FIRST WAY

Answer 8

Although Aquinas initial hypothesis of something potential needing to be actual he fails to defeat the challenge of infinite regression and infinite cause/effect

Question 9

Section 2: theme

Answer 9

Aquinas Second way – Uncaused Cause

Question 10

Section 2: AO1

SECOND WAY

Answer 10

Through empirical observation, Aquinas argued that everything in the world has a cause and nothing is the cause of itself. As infinite regression is impossible there must have been a first cause, which caused everything to come into existence. This first cause is God

Question 11

Section 2: AO2 FOR

SECOND WAY

Answer 11

This theory is proven scientifically (although not with certainty) as just as the effect of a child is caused by parents the effect of the universe must be caused by God

the Fallacy of Composition has many flaws as does not always hold, for example just because the tiles on the floor are square doesn’t the floor itself will - fallacious

Question 12

Section 2: AO2 AGAINST

SECOND WAY

Answer 12

Critic Hume would accentuate however the Fallacy of Composition, that just because everything in the universe has a cause, doesn’t mean the universe itself does. Russel supporting this made the statement “Just because all humans have mothers doesn’t mean the universe does.”

Mackie even if the Universe had a cause Aquinas fails to prove that this first cause was God. Matter in the atmosphere for example could be the first cause.

Question 13

Section 2: AO2 CONCLUSION

SECOND WAY

Answer 13

In conclusion, this highlights how even if there was a relationship between cause and effect, it doesn’t prove the existence of God and so isn’t a very strong argument.

Question 14

Section 3: theme

Answer 14

Aquinas – third way

Question 15

Section 3: AO1

THIRD WAY

Answer 15

Aquinas third way argues for the existence of God through Contingency. He illustrates how the world consists of contingent beings – beings that begin and end and depend on something else for their existence. Must have been a time when nothing existed and something must have been a necessary to bring all contingent beings into existence, this necessary being is God

Question 16

Section 3: AO2 FOR

THIRD WAY

Answer 16

Science works on the assumption that there are no brute facts, otherwise, science itself would not work. If things in the universe are not brute facts, why should the universe be a brute fact? Perhaps Russell is committing the fallacy of composition.

Way 3 is not talking about God’s logical necessity: that would be the Ontological Argument. Way 3 is talking about God’s metaphysical necessity – a necessity that derives from the nature of things and is fundamental for existence of all contingent things

Question 17

Section 3: AO2 AGAINST

THIRD WAY

Answer 17

Illogical to suppose a being exists whose nature requires a contradiction (cannot not exist) - e know of no beings with necessity, so when we attribute this to God we do not understand what we are saying anyway. Even if one accepts God is the uncaused cause, the phrase is non-sensical, thus the explanation is lacking at all.

Humans desire for explanations and are baffled with the response that some things cannot be explained, “the universe is a brute fact” - the unpalatable is not necessarily the inaccurate