Religion-The Cosmological Arguement Flashcards
the basic premise of the cosmological arguement
- the cosmological argument attempts to infer the existence of God from the existence of the Cosmos or from phenomena within it. Because the universe does not contain within it a reason for its own existence the cause must be outside.
- its an a posteriori/empirical argument because Aquinas draws his 3 points from his experiences in the world around him.
the argument of the unmoved mover
- Motion: everything is a chain of movements-there must have been a first/prime mover which was not moved itself-God.
- Aquinas argued that God is the primary mover, the first cause which started the chain to follow
- Example: the branch smashing the window lead to me getting glass in my foot.
- problem: what’s wrong with an infinite regress. No evidence either way.
the argument of the uncaused causer
- Cause: nothing can be the cause of itself-would have needed to exist before it had existed-need an uncaused causer to cause everything.
- Because everything has a cause the universe must also have a cause and the cause of the universe caused everything else.
- God could be the cause because he does not need a cause
- Example: the cause of the broken window was the branch hitting it.
- problem: why do all causes have to come back to a single root cause. Example: the cause of the rock smashing the window isn’t the same as the branch smashing the window. Furthermore if it is an posteriori argument he should recognise that.
the argument of possibility and necessity
- Contingency: there must have been a time when nothing existed-so the cause of the universe must have been outside and have always existed.
- Because God is outside the universe he is able to be the “primary cause” and the “primary mover”.
- -Example: the branch smashing the window was outside the house.
- problem: universe isn’t contingent nothing is forever except matter and there is no reason for it.
General criticisms of Aquinas’ argument
- Aquinas relies upon a belief in God and his being at the centre of everything.
- not a strong a posteriori argument because it begins with something we have experience of-this world and ends with something we have no experience of-infinity.
How does Liebiniz’s Law back up the Cosmological argument?
- the law: everything has sufficient reason
- nothing in the universe explains why the universe exists so the most probable cause of the universe must be outside the universe.
- problem: we have a limited scientific understanding-therefore only at this point does it appear as if no primary cause can be found within the universe. However this does not mean we will be unable to make advances which suggest otherwise.
responses to Leibiniz’s law-Hume
-Hume: Why is God exempt from the same rules as the rest of the universe, doesn’t God need a cause, isn’t God part of a chain. Highlighting the major flaw in Aquinas’ argument. Only convincing if you already have faith because then you will happy accept that God has no cause, being the primary mover and there would never be a cause found within the universe because you already believe it was God. The universe should not require God as its first cause because that would make God exempt from Aquinas compulsory rules.
Russell’s response
Russell argues against both Hume and Aquinas stating that it doesn’t matter. Even if we did know it would have little role in changing our reality
however this goes against the nature of philosophy.
Doesn’t matter if there is something rather than nothing
responses to Leibinzi’s law-Russell
g
response: the Big Bang
- scientific understanding confirms that the material universe did begin to exist at a single point in the finite past.
- This point of origin is called the singularity.
- looks as if all casual series to merge into 1 single point in the past.
- the material universe is a unit a single whole whose singular casual history begins with the big bang.
- however the cause of the big bang and what was there before remains unknown and could posses a single or multitude of causes-infinite regress
Everything has a prior cause
- Hume
- thinking about the cause of the universe is like thinking about nothing we have ever experienced.
- the dog chased a sheep of a cliff VS the cat chased a sheep of a cliff. No experience of a cat chasing sheep VS loads of experience of a dog chasing a sheep. When deciding which is more likely we refer back to similar experiences.
- No experience of anything like the cause of the universe.
- draw analogy? between the universe and what we do have experience of.
- Eg never experienced a dog but I had experienced a wolf
- the cause of the universe is like a mental act-choice that brings about an action.Whatever had caused the matter to exist could not itself be matter.
- However a divine mind bringing the universe into being is like nothing we have ever experienced.
- the language used when we consider the creation of the world “made” “created” “produced” are all connected to the familiar.
- Hume argues that our idea of cause is inseparable from of such experiences.
- Kant-trying to compare to what we know creates weak argument and paradoxs why? because everything we can think about is placed within space, time and causality. However they cannot be applied to the universe
- universe is just a brute fact
Everything has a prior cause
d
cosmological awareness
-the argument doesn’t prove anything but it does highlight the uniqueness of the relationship between the universe and god and the power of God himself as it highlights his immense abilities.
cosmological awareness
g
Hume
unititng the universe into a whole is an arbitary act and has no influence on the nature of things bedroom example
multiple causes
conecting is how our minds work
