Observation: Cosmological Argument Flashcards
What is the Cosmological Argument?
It is an a posteriori and inductive argument from observation.
What is Aquinas’ 1st Way?
1.) We can observe that there is motion.
2.) Nothing moves itself - something only moves when moved by something else.
3.) There can’t be an infinite regress of movers, or nothing will move.
4.) So, there must be an unmoved mover that is the first mover - this is God.
What is Aquinas’ 2nd Way?
1.) We can observe that there is cause and effect.
2.) Nothing causes itself - something is caused when caused by something else.
3.) There can’t be an infinite regress of causes, or there would be no effects.
4.) So, there must be an uncaused causer that is the first cause - this is God.
How does Hume reject Aquinas’ 1st and 2nd way?
He says that they cannot be analytical truths (true by definition.) If you deny an analytical truth (i.e. you say that a triangle has four sides) you would contradict yourself because a triangle is a three sided shape by definition.
But to say an event happened without a cause is less self-contradictory. We can understand things happening Ex Nihilo (from nothing.)
How could one deny Hume’s criticisms of Aquinas’ 1st and 2nd ways?
We could say that the causal principle is a synthetic truth - it is an empirical hypothesis justified by observable evidence. It would be reasonable to therefore believe in the cosmological argument.
Because the cosmological argument is inductive, it isn’t trying to definitively prove God exists, it is only priding evidence to suggest that might be the case.
What is Aquinas’ 3rd Way?
1.) The third way involve the terms contingent and necessary
2.) A contingent being depends on something else for its existence – it can either exist or not exist.
3.) A necessary being does not depend on anything else for its existence – it must exist.
4.) There cannot be an infinite regress of contingent beings
5.) If everything we see in the universe forms a chain of contingent beings – then ‘before’ this series, there would have been nothing. If everything is on that chain of contingent beings – then before it would have to be nothing.
5.) But – how could this chain of contingent beings have come from nothing..? That’s impossible.
6.) So, there must be a necessary being which began this series of contingent beings – that thing we call God.
How does Hume criticise Aquinas’ 3rd Way?
The idea of a necessary being is meaningless, because a necessary being cannot be considered as non-existent. Yet, we can imagine God not existing.
“Whatever we can imagine existing, we can imagine not existing.”
How does the masked man argument debunk Hume’s criticism of Aquinas’ 3rd Way?
We can conceive of the impossible. You could hear about a bank robbery by a masked man and conceive that the robber isn’t your father. But, if it was your father, then it would be impossible for the robber to not be your father.
God’s existence could therefore be conceivable but impossible.
How does the masked man argument debunk Hume’s criticism of Aquinas’ 3rd Way?
We can conceive of the impossible. You could hear about a bank robbery by a masked man and conceive that the robber isn’t your father. But, if it was your father, then it would be impossible for the robber to not be your father.
God’s existence could therefore be conceivable but impossible.
Why is infinite regress a problem for the Cosmological Argument?
All cosmological arguments rest on the assumption that infinite regression is impossible. This is because it would be impossible to argue for the existence of God as a creator of the universe if the universe was always there. But the universe could have always just existed, there is nothing to say otherwise that is verifiable.
How does Hume and modern science exacerbate the problem of infinite regress?
Hume would say that something impossible is something self-contradictory. The idea of causes/events is not contradicted by infinite regression.
Modern science would say that the universe is in a constant state of expanding and crunching forever. This could be the cause of causes/motion/contingent beings.
What is the fallacy of composition?
It is a fallacy to assume that the parts of a whole give us a picture of the whole. Russell would say that just because humans have a mother doesn’t mean the human race has a mother.
How does Copleston respond to the fallacy of composition?
A series of thing is either caused or uncaused.
If a series is uncaused, then its existence must be necessary alone.
A series of contingent things cannot be uncaused because they are not self causing.
Therefore, they must have a cause external to the series, and this is God.
What was Russell’s brute fact response?
There is an assumption from all arguments from contingency that there must be an explanation for a series. This claim could be denied without contradiction.
Russell points to Quantum Mechanics: “The physicists assure us that individual quantum transitions in atoms have no cause.”
What is Hume’s Fork?
A priori reasoning can only tell us about relations between ideas i.e. a bachelor is an unmarried man. They show us analytical truths (true by definition.)
A posteriori reasoning can only tell us about matters of fact. I.e. the sun will rise tomorrow. They show us synthetic truths (true by how the world is.)
The term ‘necessary being’ doesn’t appear to adhere to this. We cannot know of a being’s existence through a priori reasoning, as existence is a matter of fact.
