Cosmological Criticisms Essay Flashcards
Introduction
In Summa Theologica, Aquinas shows this argument with a multi-step argument.
1. Everything has a cause
2. Nothing can be its own cause
3. There cannot be an infinite regress
4. The first cause must be God
This argument doesn’t tell us what God’s traits ARE, and isn’t trying to argue that.
Aquinas also says that God is a necessary being, that they have to exist regardless of how they were created.
Bertrand Russell
Fallacy of Composition
If everything in the universe has a cause, that doesn’t mean that the universe itself has that cause. If the contents of something have a quality, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the thing itself has that quality.
Russell - advantages
This argument is easy to understand, and Russell uses comparisons to dissuade confusion. His argument is logically sound and so it makes sense to apply it to the universe.
Russell - disadvantages
Comparing bricks being red and the universe having a cause is not effective, they’re not similar enough.
Fredrick Copleston
He argues against the Fallacy of Composition:
He says that just because we haven’t found any proof of god, doesn’t mean that we should stop looking, and that giving up looking is pessimistic.
Russell - my view
Even though I’m not a religious person, this argument is still flawed. Cause and effect disproves his argument, and his comparison isn’t comparable. There is scientific evidence suggesting the universe is caused, but that cause is unlikely to be God. Russell is trying to back up his already existent beliefs, instead of figuring out how he feels based on evidence.
David Hume
He was a scottish philosopher, and was feart to share his beliefs. He believed that people were quick to just agree with what was told to them, without questioning. from An Equiry Concerning Human Understanding. This argument is against cause and effect. He doesn’t think that everything has a cause just because we see cause in the world.
Hume - advantages
He’s right that we cannot know that everything is caused. There is also proof that parts of quantum mechanics aren’t caused, so it’s true that not all things are caused.
Hume - disadvantages
The causal principal is considered common sense. There is also no proof of his claims, which makes him no better than the argument he is tearing apart.
Leibniz
Principle of Sufficient Reason
Leibniz simply said that if anything is contingent, it must have sufficient reason.
Hume - my view
Hume’s main point is agreeable but lacks depth. He is hypocritical as he says we need evidence to believe things but doesn’t give evidence on any of his claims
