the cosmological argument Flashcards
What is the nature of the cosmo argument?
A posteriori inductive
What is meant by a posteriori?
Based on sense experience
What is meant by inductive?
Based on probability, conclusion isn’t guaranteed
Requires ppl to take a leap of faith
What is Aquinas’ way 3 summarised?
- Everything in the cosmos is contingent
- Smth must therefore exist necessarily
What is the leap made in Aquinas’ way 3?
Smth caused the world to exist, so God caused the world to exist
What is a summary of Aquinas’ way 3 in it’s form?
P1 - Universe is contingent
P2 - smth necessary caused the universe
C - God is necessary + therefore caused the universe
What does only a necessary being have the power to do?
Create the first ever contingent thing
What was Russell’s criticism of the way 3 argument?
It commits the fallacy of composition
What is an example of the fallacy of composition?
- Hydrogen isn’t wet; oxygen isn’t wet; therefore water isn’t wet
What does the fallacy of composition mean for the cosmological argument?
Just bc everything in the universe has a cause, doesn’t mean the universe as a whole has a cause
What did Hume question/criticise about the cosmological argument?
Why do we stop the line of infinite regression at God? Did smth create God? Why is God the uncaused cause?
What does Russell say about statements about existence?
Any statement about existence will always be synthetic
What is meant by synthetic?
It’s either true or not
What does Russell say about the universes existence?
The universes existence is just a brute fact
What are weaknesses of the cosmological argument?
- Fallacy of composition
- Universe could be a brute fact
- It can’t be shown that existence of any being is logically necessary
- Why just one necessary being
What is a counter argument to the fact that the universe could just be a brute fact?
Most people just seek an explanation for things
What about Aquinas’ way 3 shows proof?
- Only deductive arg can give absolute proof; cosmo arg is inductive + can never be absolutely certain
- Way 3 will never convince atheists
What shows Aquinas way 3 HAS value for religious faith? (in terms of hypothesis + language)
- Reasonable hypothesis
- Difficult lang but concept is easy to understand
What did Aquinas not think about his way 3 argument in terms of value for religious faith?
He didn’t think it was sufficient on its own; faith is supported by reason
What shows that Aquinas’ way 3 has NO VALUE for religious faith? (Kant)
- Not all theists accept it; Kant rejected it bc he thought the idea of God as a necessary being was dependant on the onto arg
What did Karl Barth reject?
All attempts to prove God’s existence through reason
