The Cosmological argument - Arguments based on observation Flashcards

1
Q

what is the cosmological argument?

A
  • argument from contingency
  • a posteriori
  • gods existence can be proven by the fact that the universe exists and has common themes (motion and causation)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What were aquinas 3 ways?

A
  • first way (argument from motion)
  • second way (causation of existence)
  • third way (contingent and necessary objects)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What does the first way state?

A
  • there is an unmoved mover (aristotles prime mover)
    1. nothing can move itself
    2. if every object in motion had a mover then the first object in motion needed a mover
    3. movement cant go on for infinity
    4. the first mover is the unmoved mover/god
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

what does the second way state?

A
  • common sense observation tells us nothing created itself
    1. things that exist are created/caused by other things
    2. nothing can be the cause of itself
    3. cannot be an endless string of this
    4. must be an uncaused first cause/God
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What does the third way state?

A
  1. contingent
  2. not every being can be contingent
    3.there must exist a being which is necessary to be cause contingent
  3. the necessary being is God
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Supports of the argument

A

Lebiniz
- sufficient reason
-> if gods the explanation then everything makes sense
-> The universe is a harmonious whole (must be a creator or explanation)
“God is the ground of being” - Tillich
-> for every event, truth or existence there must be a significant explanantion
-> God is the only sufficient answer for all

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Criticisms of the argument

A

hume:
-> infinite regress is possible
-the chance of it being possible and impossible are equal
-> just because there’s a visible cause, doesn’t mean that there’s an effect. And vice versa
At what point does a cause become an effect
-> CORRELATION ≠ CAUSATION
- we can’t prove events are linked
russel:
-> can a being really be necessary?
- an inductive leap
-> the universe just is = just as likely as a necessary God
-> FALLACY OF COMPISITION
- the whole doesn’t necessarily have the same explanation as it’s parts e.g all people have parents ≠ mankind has a parent
-> cannot explain the extent of the universe because we can’t get out of it to see the evidence
kant:
-> our knowledge of cause and effect is limited to our physical + contingent world
- we don’t have any knowledge of outside tine + space (where God is)
-> it doesn’t make sense to talk about a chain of causes stretching beyond the empirical world
voltaire:
-> THE PRESENCE OF EVIL
- if God is the explanation for an earthquake, famine etc then he cannot be all loving

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly