Metaphysics of god - Cosmological argument

Question 1

What are cosmological arguments from causation?

Answer 1

Everything has a cause, so the universe itself must have a cause - that cause is God

Question 2

Causation - What’s the Kalam argument?

Answer 2

-Everything with a beginning must have a cause
-The universe has a beginning (could not have existed for infinite time)
-Therefore the universe has a cause
What could possibly be powerful enough to create something as big as the universe from nothing if not God?

Question 3

Causation- Kalam argument evidence example

Answer 3

• things dont appear in existence, they’re all caused to exist (A baby caused to exist by its parents, the Earth caused to exist by forces of nature operating on physical matter)

Question 4

Whats Aquinas’ first way - argument from motion

Answer 4

-Some things in the world are in motion e.g pool ball rolling across the table
-Whatevers in motion must’ve been put into motion by something else
e.g someone hit the pool ball with the cue
-If A was moved by B, then something must’ve put B in motion, etc
-If it goes on forever, there’s no first mover
-If there’s no first mover, then there’s no following movers
-But things are in motion, therefore there must be a first mover
-It must be God

Question 5

what’s aquinas’ second way - causation argument

Answer 5

everything in the universe is subject to cause and effect e.g C is caused by B and B caused by A, etc and if this chain of causation was infinite, there’d be no first cause. if there was no first cause, thered be no subsequent causes or effects, but we know there are causes and effects in the world so therefore there mustve been a first cause. that first cause is god

Question 6

whats descartes’ cosmological argument

Answer 6

if i was the first cause of my existence then i wouldve given myself all perfections e.g being omnipotent,scient. i dont have all perfections so im not the cause of my own existence. im a thinking thing with the idea of god. the cause of the effect must have at least as much reality as the effect and so whatever caused my existence must be the cause of its own existence or caused by something else. if my existence was caused by something else e.g my parents then they must also be the cause of its own existence or caused by something else. but there cant be an infinite chain of causes and so there must be something that caused its own existence. whatever causes its own existence is god

Question 7

responses - whats the is the first cause necessary argument

Answer 7

all argument suggest there cant be an infinite chain of causes e.g kalam arguing the universe began to exist, aquinas saying there was a first cause and prime mover - but why must there be a first cause? perhaps theres an infinite number of causes going back forever and the universe never began to exist - instead simply existed forever

Question 8

responses - whats humes fork, relation of ideas, response

Answer 8

relation of ideas- ‘everything has a cause’ isnt a relation of ideas because we can concieve of something without one e.g a table springing into existence for no reason may be an odd thought but its not a logical contradiction like a married bachelor or 4sided triangle

Question 9

responses - whats humes fork, matter of fact, response

Answer 9

‘everything has a cause’ cant be known as matter of fact either, hume argues we never actually experience causation, at best just the ‘constant conjunction’ of event a and b, never event a causing event b

Question 10

responses - is the first cause god

Answer 10

aquinas and kalam may show theres a first cause or prime mover, but they dont show that this is god - even if we accept of a first cause, it doesnt necessarily follow that god exists

Question 11

What are cosmological arguments from contingency?

Answer 11

Things that exist contingently can’t be explained without referencing a necessary being - God

Question 12

whats contingent existence

Answer 12

something that might not have existed e.g that tree wouldnt exist if the gardener didnt plant the seed, earth wouldnt exist if the force of gravity didnt exist

Question 13

whats necessary existence

Answer 13

something that must always exist and cant go out of existence e.g gods existence isnt contingent on anything

Question 14

arguments from contingency - whats aquinas third way

Answer 14

everything that exists contingently didnt exist at one point and so if everything exists contingently then at some point nothing existed. if nothing existed, then nothing could begin to exist. but since things did begin to exist then there cant have been nothing in existence. therefore there must be something that exists necessarily not contingently, and that necessary being is god

Question 15

contingency - whats leibniz principle of sufficient reason

Answer 15

a fact cant be real and a statement cant be true wihtout an explaination of why it is the case even if we cant know what the explaination is

Question 16

contingency - leibniz sufficient reason argument: whats the two types of truth

Answer 16

truths of reasoning (basically necessary truths) and truths of facts (basically contingent truths)

Question 17

contingency - leibniz sufficient reason argument: whats the sufficient reason for truths of reasoning

Answer 17

theyre revealed by analysis - e.g analysing 2 + 2 = 4 theres no further explaination for why its true as to know what 2 + 2 = 4 means to know that its true. you dont need to appeal to anything beyond this to provide sufficient reason why its true

Question 18

contingency - leibniz sufficient reason argument: whats the sufficient reason for truths of facts

Answer 18

you can always provide more detail through more contingent truths e.g the contingent existence of a tree is from someone planting a seed. but this fact is also contingent (why they planted the seed, why seeds exist, etc). providing contingent reasons for contingent facts could go on forever and so until this cycle of providing contingent facts ends, we cant provide sufficient reason for truths of fact

Question 19

contingency - leibniz sufficient reason argument: how do we provide sufficient reason for truths of facts

Answer 19

we need to refer to outside the sequence of contingent facts to a necessary substance, which leibniz argues is god

Question 20

responses to contingency - whats the fallacy of composition

Answer 20

invalid inference that because the parts of something have a specific property, the entire thing must have that property. e.g just because all the players of a football team are good, doesnt mean the team is good (may not work well together)

Question 21

responses to contingency - how does russell argue the fallacy of composition go against causation arguments

Answer 21

cosmological arguments fall for the fallacy e.g leibniz’s argument - just because everything in the universe requires sufficient reason to explain its existence, doesnt mean the universe itself does. instead russell argues the universe is just there and thats all

Question 22

responses to contingency - how is ‘god does not exist’ a contradiciton

Answer 22

if god exists necessarily, then god does not exist is a contradiction - something that cant be coherently concieved. but ‘god does not exist’ can be coherently concieved so therefore its not a contradiction. therefore god doesnt exist necessarily