Philosophy: Cosmological arguments Flashcards
What is the cosmological argument?
This argument studies the universe (cosmos) and from the universe, argues that God exists. It is a posteriori (based on experience of the universe) and inductive (leads to a probable not a definite conclusion.
St Thomas Aquinas’ Cosmological argument
five ways of proving that God exists through the use of reason alone. These five ways were posed in order to support faith. They were never intended to convert the non believer.
Aquinas’s first way
For Aquinas there was a chain of change (motion) which was observable in the universe. Nothing can change without external forces working on it. These external forces also change and so on (chain). However, this chain is not infinite - God is the start of the chain of change
What qualities must the start of the chain have?
Must be timeless because time is a measure of change. If it is in time, it is changing and therefore part of the chain of change. Must be out of space, as if it is in space it is part of the chain of change. Must be perfect, because imperfection suggests change. If it was perfect, it would have no need to change and would have no potential, because if you have potential you can change.
God is the only thing which is fully actual and does not change.
Steps for the first way (motion)
- Observe that there is change and motion in the universe, e.g. When a log burns it turns black and changes to ash.
- There is a chain of change and motion, e.g. The log changes to ash, the ash changes by decomposing further and becoming part of the soil.
- This chain of motion cannot be infinite, otherwise it would not exist in the first place. Genesis 1 also reveals the start.
- You cannot get something from nothing, so something must have brought the chain into existence - an unmoved mover
- The unmoved mover must be unchanged itself otherwise it is part of the chain of motion
- Conclusion: the unmoved mover is God because God is not moved, being outside of the universe, timeless, spaceless and perfect.
Steps for the second way (cause and effect)
- Observe that there is cause and effect in the universe, e.g. Ash comes from a burning log
- This then has an effect, e.g. Ash was formed from the log, the log was cut from the tree, the tree was pollinated and grew.
- This chain of cause and effect cannot be infinite, otherwise it would not exist in the first place. Genesis 1 also reveals the start.
- You cannot get something from nothing, so something must have brought the chain into existence - an uncaused causer
- The uncaused causer must be unchanged itself otherwise it is part of the chain of motion
Conclusion: the uncaused causer is God because God is unchanged, being outside of the universe, timeless, spaceless and perfect.
Kenny’s criticisms of Aquinas
- Kenny argues that it is not the case that everything relies on something else for its movement or change – there are (or it as least possible for there to be) things that are self-moving. This uses on Newton’s first law of motion.
- If this is the case, then it is possible that the universe could consist eternally of matter in motion. There does not need to be a prime mover. Kenny claims that we can find plenty of much more mundane examples of things that change themselves – animals and people for instance.
Kenny argues that whatever causes the change does not have to have the characteristic of that change itself e.g. Aquinas says that fire is hot and that makes the wood hot (Aquinas’ example) but Kenny points out that kingmakers are not necessarily kings themselves and dead men do not commit murders.
Aquinas’s third way (contingency)
This means that things in the universe come in and out of existence. Given infinite time, all possibilities will happen. There must, therefore, have been a time when nothing existed. However, something exists now. You can’t get something from nothing. There must have been something that has always existed and does not depend upon anything else for its existence. Aquinas called this being the necessary being. It exists necessarily. This being is God.
Leibniz
Why is there something rather than nothing?
Leibniz sufficient reason
If something exists, there must be a reason why that thing exists.
If a statement is true, there must be a reason why that statement is true.
If something happens, there must be a reason why that thing happens.
He concludes that God is the sufficient reason for everything in the universe.
Why did Leibniz think that the universe still requires an explanation even if it is eternal?
if the universe is eternal then there is a succession of states reaching back to eternity, and neither one of these will be able to give a sufficient reason for its existence.
Leibniz example
Leibniz says to imagine that there is an eternal Geometry book from which one book has been copied and then another book has been copied from that copy etc. We can explain each copy from the last copy but we will never come to a full reason for each copy because the initial book is eternal. He likens this to the world and says that if the world is eternal, we will just end up with a succession of states, one coming from the other but with no sufficient explanation.
So to sufficiently explain the states within the world, we must explain the world itself. There must be a first Cause of the world which has no reason beyond itself i.e. it contains the reason for its existence within itself. This is the Necessary being.
Humes objections to Leibniz
- David Hume argues that the universe is just brute fact, it does not require an explanation.
- Hume says that the universe itself may be eternal. It does not need to have had a beginning.
- Hume says that just because everything in the universe has a reason for its existence, it does not mean that the universe has a reason for its existence e.g. just because humans have a mother, it does not mean humankind has a mother! (fallacy of composition)
- Russell also claimed that scientists were discovering “first causes which have not in themselves got causes”.
- Hume-we have no experience of other universes and their creation. We were not there when the universe started i.e. we have a lack of empirical evidence and so we cannot draw conclusions about the start of this universe or the design of it (this criticism works for both the Cosmological argument and the Teleological argument). As humans, we are inclined to make illegitimate leaps between cause and effect.
- Hume-it is possible to imagine something happening without a cause or a reason.
Hume-given infinite time, all possibilities would happen, so the universe would have come about in infinite time.
William Lane Craig analogy
Supports the idea that the universe cannot be eternal / infinite.
In our universe we add events and we add time e.g we add another day, another decade, the first world war, the Second World War. We are always adding to the universe in some way. If the universe was infinite, we would not be able to do this as you cannot add to infinity. This suggests that the universe is not infinite. Craig says that infinity is simply a mathematical concept. It does not exist in reality.
E.g. Craig says to imagine a library with an infinite number of books. If you add a book to it or loan one out, it still has an infinite number of books in it (you cannot add to or take away from infinity). If every book was taken out, the shelves would still have to be full if it is an infinite library.
