U1T2 The Cosmological Argument Flashcards
the Kalam Cosmological Argument
Islamic version of the argument
P: whatever comes into being must have a cause
P: the universe came into being
C: the universe must have a cause
Kalam premise 1 (whatever begins to exist has a cause) support
never witness something coming from nothing (supported by experiencing the world, & science)
Kalam premise 2 (the universe began to exist) support from science: second law of thermodynamics
processes in a closed system tend towards equilibrium - if universe had always existed this point would have been reached and there would be no useable energy
Kalam premise 2 (the universe began to exist) support from science: Hubble’s measuring of redshift
empirically confirmed universe expanding outwards from a single point in the finite past
Kalam premise 2 (the universe began to exist) support from science: Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin
confirmed any universe which has on average been expanding must have an absolute beginning
Vilenkin on the beginning of the universe
we can no longer hide behind a past-eternal universe… have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning
Kalam argument: requirements of the cause of the universe
timeless, immaterial, uncaused, unimaginably powerful (fits description of God)
Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason
we hold that no fact could ever be true of or existent, nor statement correct, unless there were a sufficient reason why it was thus and not otherwise
as rational creatures we are entitled to seek rational explanations
what is a sufficient reason
a complete, ultimate explanation for something
what is a proximate reason
an incomplete explanation involving only the immediate cause
Leibniz’s deductive cosmological argument from sufficient reason
p1 - anything contingent must have an explanation
p2 - the fact there are contingent things cannot be explained by other contingent things
p3 - there are contingent things
c1 - existence of contingent things must be explained by something necessary
c2 - there exists a necessary being: god
Leibniz geometry book example of sufficient reason
if one asks where a geometry book came from and was answered ‘copied from another’ (proximate reason) they would not be satisfied, they would want to know where all the geometry books came from (sufficient reason) - says this is true also of the world, rejecting infinite regress of explanation
Leibniz argument from sufficient reason strengths
- avoids infinite regress debate (infinite or not, the universe still requires sufficient reason)
- cannot be weakened by proximate claims from science
Copleston’s issues with Aquinas’ argument
could fail to prove god’s existence because stating god was the first mover suggests god started the universe then left us all to our own devices - god does not need to exist today, he was only required as the starting point
Copleston: in fieri causes
cause something to become an effect
the efficient causes
Copleston: in esse causes
sustain the essence or being of the effect caused by an in fieri cause
the subordinate causes
Copleston: father and son example to explain in fieri cause vs in esse cause
a son is dependent on his father in order to exist (father is the in fieri cause of the son), but beyond this the son is not dependent on the father to exist, instead is dependent on factors such as air, water, and the factors on which those depend (in esse causes)
Copleston’s argument for god in fieri AND in esse overview
- infinite regression of in esse causes is impossible as without the first member (unmoved mover, uncaused causer) there is no explanation as to why there is motion / change / cause in the present
- the present existence of something needs to be caused by something that can then sustain its existence
- no member of the causal series can exist without the present operation of a first cause, so there must be a cause which preserves the being of all existing things and without which the universe would cease to exist (god)
Copleston’s argument from contingency overview
defines the world as the real or imagined totality of individual objects, none of which contain in themselves the reason for their existence (they are all contingent). as the sum of these contingent parts, the world itself must be contingent, so the only sufficient reason for its existence must be a reason external to itself - this reason must be an existent being
Copleston rejection of infinite regress
infinite series of contingent events would mean existence has no cause and therefore no explanation, which goes against principle of sufficient reason
Russell: impossibility of sufficient reason
a sufficient reason for the universe would be beyond human experience and so unattainable to humans - it is ‘something which cannot be got and which one ought not to expect to get’
Russell: our concept of ‘cause’ and the mother example
derive concept of cause from particular observations of objects within the universe, so there is no reason that ‘cause’ must apply to the total - eg all individual humans have a mother, but this does not mean the human race as a total has a mother
Russell vs Copleston - does science demand a cause
C: science is founded on the idea of order, cause, explanation
R: science looks for a cause, and assumes cause is likely to be found, but does not imply cause is everywhere / certain
Russell: examples in science that counter argument from contingency
- physics suggests individual quantum transformations in atoms have no cause
- science has found ‘first causes’ which begin causal chains without themselves having a cause
Copleston vs Russell overall arguments on sufficient reason for universe
C: god is the only possible sufficient reason for the universe
R: ‘the universe is just there and that is all’ is a sufficient reason
