CRITICISMS + RESPONSES for cosmological arguments

Question 1

List of all possible criticisms to the COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT:

Answer 1

1. The possibility of an infinite series
2. The argument commits the fallacy of composition (Russell)
3. The impossibility of a necessary being (Hume and Russell).
4. Hume’s objection to the ‘causal principle’

Question 2

PROBLEM: The possibility of an infinite series

Answer 2

• Why must there be a first cause or a prime mover?
• Cosmological Philosophers claim: something must have moved the universe from a state of potentiality to actuality, and this cannot be an infinite regress as they are impossible, therefore there must be a first cause (mover/necessary being)
• HUME argued isn’t necessarily true.
• ‘There cannot be an infinite series’ isn’t an analytic truth, nor can we have experience of this matter to disprove it.
• Therefore infinite regression is conceivable.

Question 3

RESPONSE TO: the possibility of an infinite series

Answer 3

THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS: point out issues with infinite series

1. WILLIAM LANE CRAIGS Infinite Library example:
   - Imagine a library with an infinite number of black and red books.
   - You could add as many books without increasing the size of the the library
   - You could remove any finite number of books without decreasing the size of the library
   - You could remove all the red books without decreasing the total number of books.
   = This shows the idea of infinites is illogical
2. HILBERT HOTEL:
   - Imagine a hotel with infinite rooms.
   - This hotel could be full, but if everyone moved up one room, there would still be space for one more.
   - This could go on infinitely as they would never run out of rooms

Question 4

COUNTER TO THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS (actual infinites)

Answer 4

THE BIG BOUNCE

• we can see possible examples of actual infinites
• Many physicists have argued the universe will eventually run out of energy from the big band to continue expanding
• At this point the gravity at the centre of the universe will pull everything back towards it, eventually causing ‘a big crunch’
• Some have gone as far as to say that there has and will be an invite chain of these
• Therefore there may not be a first cause, an actual infinites could be possible as there’s just an invite chain of ‘bangs’ and ‘crunches’

Question 5

RESPONSE TO THE BIG BOUNCE (as example of actual infinites)

Answer 5

THE BIG BANG

• Even if we do accept the big bounce, it seems there must have been an initial cause to the Big Bounce judging by general laws of causation
• Therefore, the Big Bang as a cause is a better argument inductively as there’s more scientific evidence for it than the big bounce and its more widely accepted as a theory

Question 6

PROBLEM WITH AQUINAS’ 1st and 2nd way

Answer 6

RUSSEL = COMMITS THE FALLACY OF COMPOSITION

• You can’t apply a characteristic, principle or rule of an individual thing to the larger group or category that it makes up
• RUSSELL’S MOTHER EXAMPLE:
• Russell observed each individual must have a mother. Every human needs a mother to be born. However, the general group of individuals - humanity - does not have a mother.
• Just because specific things in the universe need a cause, doesn’t mean the universe as a general grouping of these things need a cause.
• Therefore the universe may well not need a cause but is simply a necessary thing in itself.

Question 7

RESPONSE: to Russells fallacy of Composition

Answer 7

AQUINAS’ third way, argument for contingency.
Unlike his first two ways it doesn’t assume that observable causation or motion is should apply to the cause of the universe. It argues that all the things within the universe contingent, they require a necessary cause to exist.

Question 8

PROBLEM: HUME - The impossibility of a necessary being

Answer 8

ISSUE FOR AQUINAS’ 3rd way and LEIBNIZ

HUME FORK:

• existence is something about the world known a posteriori = so is always contingent
• The only necessary things are ones which are true by definition (analytic)
• However, these tell us nothing about the world, (unlike existence)
• As existence is a posteriori, and the only things that are necessary are analytic, necessary existence crosses the fork.
• According to Hume anything that crosses the fork cannot be considered knowledge and thus should be ‘committed to the flames’
• THEREFORE, God cannot have necessary existence as Aquinas’ 3rd way and Leibniz cosmological argument suggests.

Question 9

LEIBNIZ RESPONSE: to the impossibility of a necessary being

Answer 9

• There is no contradiction in saying that necessary existence is possible
• This is because, there would only be contingent things if there was a necessary thing
• Because a cause of contingent objects cannot be in place, without something necessary

Question 10

PROBLEM: HUME - Objection to the ‘causal principle’

Answer 10

He presents his BILLIARD BALL EXAMPLE: experience tells you that if one billiard ball hits another, this will cause the second ball to move. You assume this relationship holds as you’ve seen this type of event hundreds of times without fail.

• However you could imagine other events happening (ball stops completely)
• Hume argued you never see one event ‘causing’ the other - you simply see one event happen and then another and you infer a relationship due to the similarities
• Since we don’t actually witness causation, Hume argues it cannot be a necessary fact.
• If it isn’t, then the cosmological arguments cannot say anything definitely needs a cause.

Question 11

SWINBURNE RESPONSE: Humes objection to the ‘causal principle’

Answer 11

• The cosmological argument is aiming to be inductive not deductive
• He recognises a lot of the criticisms (causation isn’t necessary or the universe may be infinite)
• However, whilst we cannot definitely prove God exists. God is still the best explanation