RS ( Cosmoligcal Argument) Flashcards
Cosopmogical argument comes from comos meaning
universe
Plato in Laws says?
‘Shall we assume then that the soul contorls heavna nd earth’
primary movers- move themselves and others
secondary movers- only be moved by tohers
only souls an be primary movers-creator must have a soul
Aristotle in MEtaphysics says?
‘Nothing can come form nothing’
must be an itial cause as nothing can come fromt he action of nothing
Aquinas 3 out of his 5 ways are?
1) The unmoved Mover- everything is in motion or has the potential to move (e.g. humand grow and develop and then die
everything is moved by something else
nothing can move itself- cna’t be infinite
so mus tbe a Prime mover that causes motion in all
2) The uncaused causer- cause-and-effect, everything is caused by something else
illigcla for something to cuase itslef
there msut be somehting that started off the chain
3) The necessary Being- evrything is contingent-potential not to exist - impossible for nothing to come from nothing so somehting has to exist necessrily that all the contingent beings depend on
The Kalam Argument?
veryhting that comes into being must have a cause
The universe came into being and so must ahve a cause
The universe can’t be an actual infinite (beginningless series of events) becuase you can count the past events in history
Willoam Lain Craig- uses one library withn an infite number of reed books and one with red+black books (second one should have double the amount buit it doesn’t)- this an’t work in the real world
Can’t traverese actual infintie wih successive addition
a temproal series of apst events is formed by successive addition so can’t be an actual infinitnwe
If its not an actual infite its a finite- must have a 1st cause
Cause-and-efect appluies in contingent world- you must be able to count them s its not an infinite
Its impossible to count to infinity- serires formed by successive addition has the potneitla to be infinite but at any given moment is finite
Leibniz Sufficnet Reason Argument?
everyhting in the universe msut ahve sufficent reason amounts to a total causal and epistemoligcla explanantion
everything in the world is contigent- releis onj somehtingelse- can’t be its own sufficent reason
Has ot eb a necessary being that is self-causing and self-sustianing that gives sufficent reaosn to everythingelse
This is God
Swinburn’ If we can explain bits of the univerese by one simple being we should even if we can’t explain that being’
Hume: That is an inductive leap to assume God must be repsonble (weak)
What does Ockham’s razor say?
‘entities should not be multiplied unecessarily’
The simple conclusion if often the most viable one
OTher scienfic explanations for that of the world?
The Big Bang- single entity that exploded.caused the universe
Oscillating Univerese theoyr- infinite number of expandning an dcontracting univereses
Criitisms of these other scientific explanations?
Hypothesis tested against evidance but they aren’t proven theories
Belief that God caused the scientific exp-lanations and sustaned them
The beleif that science is agaisnt relgion is wrong becuase they can work together [Issac Newton quote]
Hume’s critisims of the cosomolical argument and counter- critisisms?
1) why can’t there be an infiinte regression of causes? Is a first cause necessary?
X Counter-critisism- Mackie emphasises Aquinas’ compelte rejection of inflinite cause-and-effect with analogy of train- each carrige pulls the next-loguical (deductive reaosning) to assume a engine owering the whole thing
However, anology (redctio ad ansurdum)
2) Why should God be a great UNCAUSED CAUSER thjat is an exception
X Counter-critisim- God is not bpund by natural laws on earth
3) Why should we ahve to search for an answer Hume: ‘ We should never look beyond the present material world’
X Counter-critisim: We should never to stop searching for the univerese meaning
4) Pluraity of causes- why should ther just be one and why shoudl huis effect eb so great?
X Counter-critisism: Would these causes be necssary or simeltanous? Of course the effect is extradoniry- its a perfect God
5) Theisitic God: Why does God have to eternally exist -couldn’t he be dead now (wouldn’t be God). His role is supposed to eb greater than starting off a ‘domino effect’
Hume: ‘ why should the material world not be the necessary being Aquinas speaks of?’
X Counter-critisim: [weak]- God planting a seed and helping ti to mature like a flower
Copleston and Russel Radio debate?
Copelston (combined Aquinas and Leibniz arguyments)
-nothign in this world has sufficent reaosn for itslef
- have to accpet a first cause (uncaused causer) to provide an explantion for everything’s existance]
‘wiothout such an explanation everything would be gratutious, this gardent this city and myself’
Agreed witrh Aquianas’s 3rd way- ther has to be a necessry being
everything in the world is contingent- ‘casue external to itself’ e.g. us>parents (prove from epricial evidanc ein the world)
sicne nothing int he qworkd onctians the reason for the univerese’ existance there must be an external explanation for iit and everything in it
This cause must have caused itself
Russels counter-arguments and Copleston’s repsonse?
Russel: ‘ I should jsust say the universe is just there and that’s all’ - brute fact of the universe
no need to find an explaantion (ont he side of Hume)
Coplseton: ‘ If one refuses to even sit downa dn the chessboard ansd make a move, thwey cannot of course be checkmated’
Russel: Leibniz argument- ststements are anlytic a being can onyl be necessary if it si self-contrdictry to deny but it isn’t
Copleston: It isn’t analtics there are contingent beings (we can see them) therore it cam’t eb analytics ther eis a necessary being if coningent beings exisitng means a necesary oen has to
- Both debate the word ‘contingent’
Strengths of the arguement and weaknesses?
Strengths: Doesn’t reuslt in an anthrophomic god (like Paley’s deisng argument)- God is still external and omnipotent
- encpmpasses science- God sustained and created processes
-provides a solution unlike Russel’s complete rejection but no other explanation
Weaknesses: doesn’t allude to God#s other charactersitics, can’t explain why God si omnibenevolent but allows evil
- makes a lot of inductiove leaps that the onyl possible explanation is God without considering anythinelse
