Criticisms of CA Flashcards
what are Hume and Kant
empiricists
what are Humes 4 arguments against the CA
no direct experience of creation
‘principle of sufficient reason’ criticism
interpretation of causation
fallacy of composition
Hume - no direct experience of creation
our knowledge comes from sense experience
can’t speak meaningfully about it
no sufficient evidence to prove cause
Hume - ‘principle of sufficient reason’ criticism
we will never have total explanation of the universe
not a logical requirement to continue looking for explanation
Hume - interpretation of causation p1
we think of causation temporarily, first cause sets off a chain of events
implies first cause no longer exists, or fits in a time frame
but God must be present to act in our world
causation can be interpreted as a sustaining event,
not just causing but keeping going
Hume - interpretation of causation p2
so, chain of causation is more hierarchal with God, an ongoing and sustaining cause of the universe
Hume argues we don’t actually experience causation, it is something we impose on the world through our perception and past experiences
Hume - interpretation of causation p3
we add idea of ‘cause’ to observations because we’ve seen situations to create the perception of cause
we can never think of an event as not having a particular cause
so, we cannot have any certainty of Aquinas’ chain of causes if there is no chain of causes, there doesn’t have to be a first cause
Hume - fallacy of composition
it’s a fallacy to think that because there’s a property / common attribute to each group, then this property must apply to the group as a whole
a mistaken belief based on an unsound argument
what are Kant’s 2 arguments against the CA
empiricist
issue of necessary being
kant as an empiricist
our knowledge is limited
not possible to speculate on what may or may not exist independently transcendently
what can we only apply - issue of necessary being (kant)
we can only apply that term to true statements
- when the denial of one would be a contradiction
‘God exists’ what (kant)
not a self-evident proposition
concept of necessity can not be applied
aquinas’ argument is undermined and has contradictions
what is not a self-evident proposition (kant)
‘God exists’
what undermines aquinas’ argument (kant)
everything has a cause but God caused himself
what is a weakness of Kant
reductio ad absurdum - proves has to be rule exception to Prime Mover
