The Cosmological Argument (Observation) Flashcards
What is the definition of A Priori knowledge?
A Priori knowledge is knowledge that does not require experience or evidence to be understood.
What is A Posteriori knowledge?
A Posteriori knowledge is knowledge that depends on experience or evidence to be understood.
What does the Greek term “Telos” mean?
The Greek term ‘Telos’ means ‘end’ or ‘purpose’.
What is the Teleological Argument?
The Teleological Argument is the argument for the existence of God based on the evidence of order and design in nature.
What is the Design Argument?
The Design Argument is an argument for the existence of God based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural or physical world.
What is Design Qua Purpose?
Design Qua Purpose is the idea that the universe was designed for a particular purpose.
What is the Watchmaker Analogy?
The Watchmaker Analogy is a teleological argument which states that just as a watch’s design implies a watchmaker, the design of creation implies a designer.
What is an Inductive Argument?
An Inductive Argument is an argument that reaches a conclusion based on probability, rather than conclusive proof or facts.
What is the Cosmological Argument?
The Cosmological Argument claims that everything in nature depends on something else for its existence and therefore must have had a first cause or necessary being (God).
What is the Unmoved Mover?
The Unmoved Mover is a being that causes movement or change without being moved or changed itself.
What is the Uncaused Cause?
The Uncaused Cause is a being that is the cause of the universe but has no cause itself; it is eternal.
What is a Necessary Being?
A Necessary Being is a being that does not depend on anything else for its existence; it exists on its own.
What is a Contingent Being?
A Contingent Being is a being that depends on something else for its existence; it does not exist necessarily.
What makes ‘a priori’ arguments true by definition?
A priori arguments are true by definition, as they rely on concepts whose truth is inherent. For example, “All bachelors are unmarried” is true by the definition of a bachelor. Strength
Why are ‘a posteriori’ arguments considered strong?
A posteriori arguments are based on empirical evidence from the natural world, which provides a solid foundation for drawing conclusions. Strength
How do ‘a posteriori’ arguments use inductive reasoning?
A posteriori arguments use inductive reasoning by drawing conclusions based on the weight of evidence gathered through observation, allowing for more flexibility and adaptability. Strength
What does J.L. Mackie argue about ‘a priori’ arguments?
J.L. Mackie argued that a priori arguments cannot establish concrete reality because they rely on definitions rather than empirical evidence. Weakness
Why does David Hume criticize ‘a priori’ arguments?
David Hume criticized a priori arguments by stating that without empirical evidence or experience, you cannot prove anything, rendering such arguments weak. Weakness
What does Kant argue about defining something into existence?
Kant argued that you cannot define something into existence, meaning that we can’t simply say something exists by adding “exists” to a definition, such as claiming God exists by definition. Weakness
Why can ‘a priori’ arguments be rejected based on definitions?
A priori arguments rely on accepting definitions before the argument works, but someone can reject those definitions (like rejecting “bachelor” as “unmarried”) which weakens the argument. Weakness
How can observations in ‘a posteriori’ arguments be unreliable?
Observations in a posteriori arguments can be unreliable because our senses can be deceived, such as in the case of optical illusions, making it difficult to trust sensory evidence in arguments. Weakness
How does the possibility of changing conclusions affect ‘a posteriori’ arguments?
A posteriori arguments are vulnerable because new evidence can change conclusions, such as how the early belief in a flat Earth was overturned when new observations showed otherwise. Weakness
What is the key strength of ‘a priori’ reasoning?
A priori reasoning is considered strong because it relies on deductive logic and does not depend on potentially unreliable experiences. Strength
Why might ‘a posteriori’ arguments be seen as stronger than ‘a priori’ arguments?
A posteriori arguments are grounded in empirical evidence and inductive reasoning, offering conclusions based on observable facts, which can be more convincing. Strength
What is a major criticism of ‘a priori’ reasoning?
A major criticism is that a priori reasoning is based on concepts or definitions, and without empirical evidence, it cannot prove anything concrete about the world. Weakness
What is a major criticism of ‘a posteriori’ reasoning?
A major criticism of a posteriori reasoning is that sensory observations can be unreliable, leading to potentially flawed conclusions based on inaccurate data. Weakness
What is the cosmological argument?
The cosmological argument (or first cause argument) argues that God must exist because the universe requires a cause or explanation for its existence.
Which philosopher is most associated with the cosmological argument, and who influenced him?
Thomas Aquinas is the philosopher most associated with the cosmological argument. He was influenced by Aristotle.
Why does the cosmological argument infer (argue for) the existence of God?
It argues that everything in the universe has a cause, and since an infinite regress of causes is impossible, there must be a first cause, which is identified as God.
What is an alternative counter-argument to the assumption that the universe must have a cause?
A counter-argument is that the universe could be eternal and does not require an external cause, or that quantum mechanics allows events to occur without a definite cause.
How does the cosmological argument support its assumption that the universe exists?
It assumes that we can observe the universe and that everything in it follows a cause-and-effect chain, which suggests the necessity of an ultimate first cause.
What is the first way of the cosmological argument?
The argument from motion/change states that everything in motion is moved by something else, and there must be a first unmoved mover (God).
Why does Aquinas argue that an infinite chain of movers is impossible?
If there were an infinite chain of movers, movement would never have started. There must be a first mover that sets everything in motion without being moved itself.
What is meant by “potentiality” and “actuality” in the first way?
Things move from potentiality (what they could become) to actuality (what they are), but this requires something actual to initiate the change.
Who is the “unmoved mover” in the first way?
Aquinas argues that this is God, who moves everything without being moved.
What is the second way of the cosmological argument?
The argument from causation states that everything has a cause, and there must be a first uncaused cause (God).
Why can nothing be the cause of itself?
Something cannot be prior to itself or create itself—it must be caused by something else.
Why does Aquinas reject an infinite regress of causes?
Without a first cause, there would be no ultimate cause or intermediate causes, making the chain of causation impossible.
Who is the “uncaused cause” in the second way?
Aquinas argues that this is God, who causes everything but is not caused by anything else.
What is the Third Way of the Cosmological Argument?
The argument from contingency and necessity states that everything in the universe is contingent (it could either exist or not exist), so there must be a necessary being that has always existed – God.
What is meant by contingent existence?
Something that could either exist or not exist. For example, humans are contingent because there was a time when we did not exist, and there will be a time when we no longer exist.
Why does Aquinas argue that not everything can be contingent?
If everything were contingent, there would have been a time when nothing existed. But since something exists now, there must be a necessary being that has always existed.
Who is the necessary being in the Third Way?
Aquinas argues that God is the necessary being that caused everything else to exist.
What was David Hume’s main criticism of the cosmological argument?
Hume argued that the connection between cause and effect is a habit of the mind, not a proven fact. Just because we observe cause and effect in the universe does not mean the universe itself needs a cause.
What did Hume say about the idea of a “first cause”?
Hume questioned why the universe needed a first cause at all – it could simply exist as a brute fact, without a cause.
Why does Hume argue we cannot assume God caused the universe?
We have never observed the creation of a universe, so we cannot claim to know what caused it. The cause of the universe is beyond human experience.
What alternative explanation does Hume suggest?
The universe could be eternal or could have come into existence without a cause.
Why did Immanuel Kant reject the cosmological argument?
Kant argued that the cosmological argument moves from what we experience in this world to a cause outside our experience, which is unjustified.
What does Kant say about applying causation to God?
Causation applies only to things within time and space. Since God is supposed to be outside time and space, we cannot assume that He follows the same rules.
Why does Kant reject the idea of a necessary being?
We have no way of proving the existence of a necessary being because we have no experience of such a being.
Why does Richard Swinburne believe the cosmological argument is strong?
Swinburne argues that the cosmological argument is a strong inductive argument because it leads to the likely conclusion that God is the unmoved mover, uncaused causer, and necessary creator. He uses Ockham’s razor to suggest that the simplest and most likely explanation for the universe is God.
What is the significance of the cosmological argument being ‘a posteriori’?
It is based on empirical evidence from the observable world rather than pure logic or definition. Since everyone experiences cause and effect, they can relate to the argument.
How does the Big Bang theory support the cosmological argument?
The Big Bang theory suggests that the universe had a beginning, which aligns with the cosmological argument’s claim that the universe is not infinite and must have a cause.
Why is the existence of the universe an advantage for the cosmological argument?
No one can deny that the universe exists, making it a strong starting point for the argument. Also, the fact that we can measure time suggests that the universe had a beginning rather than being infinite.
How does the cosmological argument satisfy human needs?
It provides an explanation for the cause of the universe and the origins of everything. For theists, it supports their faith and gives their existence meaning and purpose.
What logical contradiction does the cosmological argument contain?
It rejects the idea of infinity by claiming an infinite regress is impossible, yet it asserts that God is infinite. This is a logical contradiction.
Why does the cosmological argument fail to convince atheists?
It does not prove the existence of the God of classical theism; it only suggests a possible first cause. For Hume and Kant, it fails to justify God’s existence.
What does Brian Davies argue about the cosmological argument?
He claims that the cosmological argument alone is not enough to prove God’s existence and would need support from other arguments, like the design argument, which is also criticized.
How does Hume challenge the cosmological argument’s assumptions?
Hume argues that humans link cause and effect based on their own experiences, but this does not justify extending that reasoning to the entire universe.
What does Bertrand Russell mean by the fallacy of composition?
Just because humans have mothers does not mean the universe must have a mother or creator. The argument wrongly assumes that what applies to individual things applies to the universe as a whole.
How do scientific theories challenge the cosmological argument?
Newton’s first law of motion, the steady-state theory, and the Big Bang theory suggest that the universe is either eternal or the result of a random event, making God unnecessary.
What is another name for the Cosmological Argument?
The First Cause Argument.
Who is the most famous philosopher associated with the Cosmological Argument?
Thomas Aquinas, in his work Summa Theologica.
What are the three ‘ways’ Aquinas used to argue for God’s existence?
- Unmoved Mover 2. Uncaused Cause 3. Necessary Being
Why is the Cosmological Argument considered successful?
- It is a posteriori (based on empirical evidence).
Who were the two philosophers in the famous 1947 BBC radio debate on the Cosmological Argument?
Frederick Copleston (Christian philosopher) and Bertrand Russell (atheist philosopher).
What was Bertrand Russell’s main criticism of the Cosmological Argument?
He rejected the idea that the universe needs an explanation, calling it a brute fact: “The universe is just there, and that is all.”
How did Russell criticize the use of ‘contingency’ in the argument?
He refused to describe the universe as contingent or dependent on something else for its existence.
What is the ‘fallacy of composition’ and how does Russell use it?
The fallacy of composition is assuming that what is true of the parts must be true of the whole. Russell argued: just because every human has a mother, it doesn’t mean the entire human race has a mother.
What was Russell’s view on the need for a complete explanation of the universe?
He denied that the universe requires a complete explanation and supported the idea of infinite regress (no ultimate cause).
How did Copleston respond to Russell’s criticisms?
Copleston argued that ignoring the question of the universe’s cause meant Russell was not engaging in the debate. He famously said:
How did Russell counter Copleston’s response?
Russell argued that the debate was pointless because it depended on whether one was willing to ask “Why is the universe here?” He saw it as a meaningless question.
How did Russell challenge the idea that everything requires an explanation?
He argued that if everything requires an explanation, then God must also require an explanation.
