The Cosmological argument Flashcards
What is Aquinas’ 1st way?
- the unmoved mover is God who started to move everything
- infinite regression is impossible
What is the argument for Aquinas’ 1st way?
1) Everything is in motion
2) Everything moves from a state of potentiality to actuality i.e wood has potential to be hot but is actually cold and the fire is actually hot and since it is actually hot it can move the wood to from being potentially hot to actually hot
- Something in actuality can move something from potentiality to actuality
3) Aquinas shows God as first mover stating that God is pure actuality
What is Aquinas’ 2nd way?
Causality
Everything has a cause but there must have been a first cause which is uncaused which is God
- Theory demonstrated by scientific method ( not proven with certainty) as effect of child caused by parents effect of universe caused by God
What is the argument for Aquinas’ 2nd way?
1) Nothing can be a cause of itself; everything is the cause of something else
2) Developed idea of Aristotles’ efficient cause i,e baker baking dough is efficient cause of the bread
3) So “ It is necessary to admit a first efficient cause which everybody gives the name of God”
What is the major fault in Aquinas’ argument?
Infinite regression may be possible i.e already seen in maths
What is Copplestones’ analogy with Aquinas’ second way?
winding up a pocket watch every night rather than knocking down the first domino in a chain
What is Aquinas’ 3rd way?
- Contingency
There must have been a necessary cause which brought everything into existence and this is God
What is the argument for Aquinas’ 3rd way?
Contingency
- world consists of contingent beings = beings that begin and end and depend on something else for existence
- So must have been a necessary being which brought all contingent beings into existence
- This necessary being is God
What is the Cosmological argument?
Argument by Aquinas for existence of God
- refers to presence of Cosmos as evidence of God
- Universe has a cause and this is God
What was Aquinas’ aim for the Cosmological argument?
In summa Theologica he explained wanted to solidify his already est. faith based on reason
Why would an posterior agree with the argument?
Satisfying to understand
- things must have a cause which exists outside the essence of itself
= If Big Bang required matter to take place the matter must have come from somewhere
What does Anscombe say about Humes’ criticism of Leibinez ?
“Whilst it is possible to understand something coming into existence without a cause, it doesn’t mean its true”
- Just because you can imagine a rabbit without any parents it doesn’t mean that it is possible
What are the critiques of Hume?
1) Makes assumptions about relationship between cause and effect ( a priori = not everything that exists has a cause)
2) Universe is a ‘Brute Fact’ it doesn’t need a cause it just is
3) Fallacy of Composition = just because everything in the universe has a cause doesn’t mean the universe itself has a cause
What does the critique Russel say that supports the Fallacy of Composition?
” Just because all humans have mothers doesn’t mean the universe itself does”
What did Russel say that Copleston counterargued?
Russel in 1948 BBC radio debate:
“Universe is just there and is a brute fact, there is no point questioning it”
and word necessary can’t be used unless in an analytical proposition which the existence of something is not
Coplestone :
Something that was brought into existence by another thing already existence = analytical proposition
“If one refuses to sit down at the chessboard one can never be checkmated”
the world is aggregate = were contingent meaning something necessary must have created us
