Metaphysics of god - Cosmological argument Flashcards
What are cosmological arguments from causation?
Everything has a cause, so the universe itself must have a cause - that cause is God
Causation - What’s the Kalam argument?
-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?
Causation- Kalam argument evidence example
- 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)
Whats Aquinas’ first way - argument from motion
-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
what’s aquinas’ second way - causation argument
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
whats descartes’ cosmological argument
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
responses - whats the is the first cause necessary argument
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
responses - whats humes fork, relation of ideas, response
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
responses - whats humes fork, matter of fact, response
‘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
responses - is the first cause god
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
What are cosmological arguments from contingency?
Things that exist contingently can’t be explained without referencing a necessary being - God
whats contingent existence
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
whats necessary existence
something that must always exist and cant go out of existence e.g gods existence isnt contingent on anything
arguments from contingency - whats aquinas third way
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
contingency - whats leibniz principle of sufficient reason
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
contingency - leibniz sufficient reason argument: whats the two types of truth
truths of reasoning (basically necessary truths) and truths of facts (basically contingent truths)
contingency - leibniz sufficient reason argument: whats the sufficient reason for truths of reasoning
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
contingency - leibniz sufficient reason argument: whats the sufficient reason for truths of facts
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
contingency - leibniz sufficient reason argument: how do we provide sufficient reason for truths of facts
we need to refer to outside the sequence of contingent facts to a necessary substance, which leibniz argues is god
responses to contingency - whats the fallacy of composition
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)
responses to contingency - how does russell argue the fallacy of composition go against causation arguments
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
responses to contingency - how is ‘god does not exist’ a contradiciton
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
