P1 - Cosmological Argument Flashcards
What is the basis of Aquinas’ argument in observation
Judging by the Big Bang theory, Aquinas was convinced that its basic processes did not explain themselves
All changes are the result of cause and effect
Aquinas’ third way as a posteriori and inductive argument + contingency
Based on observation, the observation that the universe exists
Way 3 is the observation that all things that we see in the universe is contingent: they are moved, changed and caused - things are created, live then die
From this observation - all things are contingent - Aquinas concluded that something must exist necessarily
Aquinas’ third way - Summa Theological
“Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary… therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God”
Summary of Aquinas’ way 3 - premise and conclusion
P1. Everything can exist or not-exist: that is, everything in the natural world is contingent
P2. If everything is contingent, then at some time there was nothing
P3. If there was once nothing, then nothing could have come from nothing
C1. Therefore something must exist necessarily, otherwise nothing would now exist which is obviously false
P4. Everything necessary must either be caused or uncaused
P5. But the series of necessary beings cannot be infinite, or there would be no explanation of that series
C2. Therefore, there must be some uncaused being which exists of its own necessity
C3. This being, we understand is God
Explanation of Aquinas’ way 3 argument
P1-P3: all contingent beings have a finite lifespan, there must be a time when nothing existed, but since ex nihilio nihil fit (out of nothing nothing can come), something must exist necessarily
There must be an uncaused necessary being - which is God
What is a fallacy of composition
A failure in reasoning which makes an argument invalid — this is the fallacy inferring that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of part of the whole or of every part of the whole
Russell’s criticism of Way 3 - fallacy of composition
“I can illustrate what seems to me your fallacy. Every man who exists has a mother, and it seems to me your argument is that therefore the human race must have a mother, but obviously the human race hasn’t a mother - that’s a different logical sphere”
We can claim that:
- everything in the universe is contingent
- but the universe as a whole is necessary
Hume and Russell’s criticism of Way 3 - rejecting the claim that any being can be necessary
Any being that exists can also not exist - there is no contradiction in thinking that any being does not exist
This is true of God also, because there is no contradiction in saying, ‘God does not exist’, so when Aquinas’ Way 3 requires God to be a necessary being, this is false logic
Reply to Hume and Russell’s criticism
Aquinas’ third way does not claim that ‘God exists’ is logically necessary — but that it is ‘metaphysically’ necessary
Metaphysical necessity is a form of necessity that derives from the nature or essence of things, so this claims about the way things ‘really are’
Hume’s criticism of Way 3 - the universe itself as a necessarily-existent being
“Why may not the material universe be the necessarily-existent Being…?”
Occam’s razor - it would be simpler to have the universe as the necessarily-existent being
Why does it have to be an unobservable God who creates the universe?
Reply to Hume’s criticism of Way 3 - the universe as a necessarily existent being
Aquinas had no problem with the idea that matter might exist necessarily
But for Aquinas, matter would be a cursed necessary being, and would still need God as an uncaused necessary being to cause its existence
Russell’s criticism of Way 3 - the universe exists as a ‘brute fact’
The simplest explanation of why the universe exists/ what caused it
That the universe exists as an unexplainable brute fact (a fact that has no explanation)
Weaknesses of Aquinas’ argument (+ competing argument) - Russell’s fallacy of composition
Weakness: Way 3 commits the fallacy of composition
CA: not all such arguments are fallacious. Aquinas’ argument is the ‘brick and brick wall’ kind that is not fallacious and might be right
Weaknesses of Aquinas’ argument (+ competing argument) - no logically necessary being
Weakness: Hume and Russell, we cannot show that the existence of any being is logically necessary
CA: way 3 is not talking about God’s logical necessarily, but about God’s metaphysical necessity and that is a powerful argument
Weaknesses of Aquinas’ argument (+ competing argument) - the universe as the necessary being
Weakness: Hume, the universe itself may be the necessary being
CA: the case for a necessarily-existing matter is no stronger than the case for a necessarily-existing mind
Weaknesses of Aquinas’ argument (+ competing argument) - universe exists as a ‘brute fact’
Weakness: universe could just exist without explanation
CA: science works on the assumption that there are no brute facts, otherwise science would not work, if things in the universe are not brute facts, why should the universe as a whole be a brute fact?
Weaknesses of Aquinas’ argument (+ competing argument) - one necessary being
Weakness: why should there just be one necessary being? Why could there not be a group of necessary beings?
CA: there could be any number of caused necessary beings, but unless we admit the existence of one, there is no explanation for all. All necessary beings must contain a reason for their own existence as well
Weaknesses of Aquinas’ argument (+ competing argument) - infinite regress of contingent beings
Weakness: why could there not be an infinite regress of contingent beings?
CA: would still not explain why there is something rather than nothing, we have no evidence that an infinite past sequence can exist in the real world
Status of Aquinas’ argument as ‘proof’ - inductive argument
Way 3 is one part of an inductive argument for the existence of God, inductive arguments deal in probabilities rather than in proofs
Status of Aquinas’ argument as ‘proof’ - overwhelming probability
Although inductive arguments are probable, there is overwhelming probability
Hume’s argues that as well as the proofs we use in logic and maths, we could also use them for what we can reasonably conclude about the real world
Therefore, it means that we have sufficient proof of the existence of unobservable entities - quarks - that it would be unreasonable to deny
Status of Aquinas’ argument as ‘proof’ - bliks
Hare’s concept of bliks could also be proof
Our bliks are our world view, but not an explanation
So religious bliks would generally include an equally rational belief in the necessary existence of God
Value of Aquinas’ argument for religious faith -
Has value for religious faith - shows faith to be reasonable
Is a reasonable hypothesis that the universe owes its existence and its nature to the existence of an uncaused necessary being
Value of Aquinas’ argument for religious faith - simple explanation
Religious believers can easily understand the evidence used by the third way, which is based on what we observe
They would understand the concept of God as a necessary being as a simple explanation
Value of Aquinas’ argument for religious faith - reason
For Aquinas, faith in God is supported by reason
But he believed that faith does not come from reasoned arguments but through God’s grace and by accepting the authority of the Chruch doctrine
