Cosmology: Aquinas

Question 1

Introduction KU

Answer 1

• The cosmological Argument is the claim that the existence of God can be inferred through facts concerning motion, change, causation, contingency and necessity in respect to the universe and the totality of its objects
• Thomas Aquinas demonstrates this theology in the first three of his five ‘Ways’ in his Summa Theologica after observation of the cosmos convinced him that it’s basic processes did not explain themselves
• It reasons that because everything in the universe such as galaxies, people and objects move and are changed as a result of cause and effect, a necessary being is required to start this cycle of contingent things and prevent it from ending

Question 2

Argument from Motion

Answer 2

• The argument from motion is that all objects are moving and everything that is in motion was put so by something else that came before it as something in a potential state cannot cause actuality
• For example a block of marble has the potential to be a statue however cannot become so without a sculpter to carve it into being
• There cannot be an infinite regress of moves, a chain of reasoning with no starting point, so there must be a first mover that is itself unmoved (God)
• Kant argued that Aquinas contradicts himself by arguing the impossibility of infinity while continually suggesting the need from a prime mover that is infinite thus instantly rejecting the argument
• This can be stated as an unconvincing counter due to Gods unique spiritual abilities that allows him to operate outside of the laws of nature as we understand them
• This therefore makes Kants criticism inapplicable as it does not consider the nature of God, that he is both immanent, within the world and transcendent, beyond the universe

Question 3

Argument from Motion Criticism

Answer 3

• Another criticism of this Way is that neither movement nor rest is necessarily the default state of the universe hence the Big Bang theory of the origins of the universe is initially less plausible than the cyclical theory as according to David Hume it is not essential for there to be a set beginning, the universe may have simply always existed
• A drawback from this is the difficulty for our mind to comprehend infinite regress which is evidenced by David Hilberts Infinite Hotel analogy making understanding our origins challenging
• Although the almost impossibility for humans to grasp the concept of infinite regress suggests the potential for a being that exists out with the universe to create it, this belief verges on arrogant by claiming that human ability to understand the functions of the universe can dictate the theories likelihood
• I therefore think Aquinas’ argument from motion is flawed due to the gaps in his argument highlighted by Hume such as the inability to deconstruct the concept of infinite regress to rule it out instead of dismissing the possibility completely

Question 4

Argument from Causation

Answer 4

• Aquinas’ second Way is based on causation and holds similarities to his first Way
• While motion is formed around how things come into being, causation focuses on why they do
• For example, a row of dominoes falling sequentially is motion and change but the thing to push them into this chain reaction is the cause, that must exist beyond the succession
• Aquinas therefore believed there was a requirement for an eternal first mover that started everything which he argued to be God
• An initial major problem of this Way is that if everything has a cause, who caused God?
• Stephen Hawking would retaliate that if an eternal God that requires no cause is a plausible belief, then it is not irrational to say that the universe does not need a God to explain its existence and is in Bertrand Russell’s words a simple “brute fact”
• The argument from causation is thus contradictory and ineffective as it equally proves the existence of a higher being as it’s superfluity
• It is made even weaker by its inability to connect with religious people and their preconceived idea of God, who typically nurtures and interacts with the world rather than Aquinas’ deist suggestion of creation and subsequent abandonment

Question 5

Argument from Contingency

Answer 5

• The third of Aquinas’ Ways is from contingency and is a posteriori and inductive argument, making it based around observation
• It proceeds by stating that the world is made up of contingent beings where their existence is not an essential and defining property but precarious
• This means that it is equally possible for such being to exist and to not
• Aquinas follows from this observation that if all being are contingent then at some point in time each object was or will become non-existent
• By applying the notion of infinite time there must be a moment when every contingent thing acts on its capacity not to be simultaneously thus nothing would exist at all
• This links back to Aquinas’ idea of causation as whatever currently exists derived from something else that came before it so if at one moment there was nothing then there would remain nothing in the past, present, and future due to actual infinity
• This would make it impossible for anything to now exist as “ex nihilism nihil fit” - nothing can come from nothing
• However things do exist thus leading to Aquinas conclusion that there must exist a necessary being that is incapable of not existing sustained by its own power to be and Leibniz’ deduction that this same being is the sufficient reason for the universe
• This way is often criticised for its incoherence with the nature of God:
  Eg. If God is immanent, an existent object on the universe then by premise it is possible for God not to exist along with it
• However God is also transcendent and beyond everything including human comprehension thus he does not comply with the normal laws of nature as we do
• This results in this criticism being unsubstantial as it only accounts for what we can see in the observable universe making it easily dismissed by theists

Question 6

Argument from Contingency Criticisms

Answer 6

• The third Way commits the fallacy of composition in accordance with Bertrand Russel by speculating that if all existent objects do not exist at some point given infinite time there would be nothing in existence as although the parts are limited it does not follow that the group as a whole is limited
• The following displayed in the Stanford encyclopaedia of Philosophy deconstructs this argument suggesting that Aquinas may be correct despite these claims if fallacy
• Although it is true that arguments from the part to the whole can commit the fallacy of composition
  Eg. All the bricks in the wall are small so the wall is small
  It does not apply to everything
  Eg. The wall is built of bricks so the wall is brick
  as the whole has the same quality as the parts
• Hence I think that the statement the universe is built from contingent things so the universe is contingent is perfectly logical as everything is only the sun total of its components