UNIT 2.2- The Cosmological Argument Flashcards
definition and reasoning of the cosmological argument
+actuality and potentiality
The cosmological arguments use the world around us to draw conclusions about the existence of a nature of God
Both Leibniz and Aquinas’ arguments are a- posteriori (based on observable evidence)
and inductive (arguing to the most likely conclusion)
Aristotle wrote that
Actuality= actually being, exiting as or doing something
Potentiality = possessing, but not yet fulfilling a potential to do be or become something else
Premises and quote of the cosmological argument (Aquinas’ first way)
+ analogy and quote from Aquinas
The unmoved mover
1- everything hat moves is moved by something else
(Empirical evidence from the world around us- motion causes change in an endless pattern- for example the motion of the moon moves the tides, which moves sand and so forth)
2- a mover must be moved by something else
3- the chain of movers cannot be infinite as otherwise movement would never have started/ nothing in the world currently would exist
4- there must be an unmoved mover, which caused/ causes movement without being moved itself NOTE- DIRECT CONTRADICTION nothing comes from nothing, but god does?
5- this unmoved mover is god
“ therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God”
+ analogy of fire, has the potential to alight, something else must do something/ occur for this transition from potential to actuality
Aquinas’ 2nd way (premises)
+definition of Aristotle’s efficient cause
One of aristotles first causes, the maker/ creator
- for Aquinas = what cause it to transform from potentiality to actuality
The Uncaused causer
1- There is nothing known to us that is “the efficient cause of itself” (all existing things we know of/ can observe have been caused by something else- parents, sexual and asexual reproduction)
2- there cannot be an infinite regress (an endless chain of reasoning/ causation that concludes there must be a beginning/ start point) of causes
3- something must’ve caused its own change from potentiality to actuality
4- this being is God
+analogy of dominoes- there must be someone to push the first one
Kalam argument- recently developed by
William Lane-Craig developed a modern cosmological argument, similar to Aquinas’ second way
1- Everything that has a beginning has a cause
2-the universe has a beginning (and therefore a cause)
Cites the puzzle of Hilbert Hotel hotel with an infinite number of rooms to illustrate this and utilises the absurdities in the puzzle to show that and actually infinite number of things cannot exist and since the beginning less series of events in time would be an actually infinite number of things there cannot be such a thing.
4- the cause of the universe must be transcendent and a creator- namely God
He derives the characteristics of a God arguing at since it caused space and time it must transcend space in time.
It also must be changeless and immaterial because “timelessness entails changelessness and changelessness implies immateriality”
He also derived that it is beginningless and uncaused because Ockham’s razor requires that we do not multiply causes without necessity and it must also be very powerful because it created the universe from nothing and must be personal
Craig concludes that these properties are best understood as characteristic of a personal God, a being with free will, agency, and the capacity to create.
Aquinas’ third way
+definition of a contingent existence and necessary existence
+defender
Contingency (Reliant on something else’s existence) in the same way upon depends on light from the Sun and volcanic rock depends on the right materials sufficient heat to form it)
-Arguably modern understanding of ecosystems supports this
Necessary= Something thats own existence is not reliant on the existence of something else
“Not all beings are merely possible,but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary”- Aquinas
1- everything we observe in the world is contingent
2- if all things are contingent, there must have been a point at which there was nothing/ no contingent beings, otherwise there would still be nothing in existence now
3- there must be a being whose existence is necessary and has always existed, God
“In order to explain existence, we must come to a being whose contains within itself the reason for this own existence”- Coppleston
The existance of contingent things necessitates the existence of a necessary being (god)
Defenders of the cosmological argument
(Biggest one)
Lebeniz questioned- why is there something rather than nothing?
His cosmological argument is based on his principle of sufficient reason.
According to the principle of sufficient reason if something exists there must be a reason why that thing exists if a statement is true there must be a reason why that statement is true if something happens there must be a reason why that thing happens he argued it made no difference whether something was eternal or not we still need a reason for it if it exists eternally we still need a reason for its eternal existence
He used the example of the existence of a geometry book, arguing that if each copy was made from an earlier one developed from one that had always existed would never lead to a complete explanation.
“ we cannot escape the ultimate out of the world reason for things, namely God”
Defenders of the cosmological argument
Swinburne
Swinburn argues that “it is very unlikely that a universe would exist and cause but rather more likely that God would exist uncaused”
The cosmological argument is better understood as an inference to the best explanation (the coherence of theism) God‘s existence despite unproven is probable given the premises and is therefore the best explanation as to the existence of the universe .
While the cosmological arguments may not be able to deduce God‘s existence, the premises are plausable and the inferences intuitive
though it may not be the analytic truth that everything that begins to exist has a cause it is extremely probable
Swinburne argued that no other explanation would be satisfactory for instance any scientific explanation must already assume that something exists and that whatever exists is governed by scientific laws which in turn don’t have any explanation
Counter of Swinburnes argument
It still doesn’t create a God of the nature originally described in theism particularly as he prescribed infinite goodness to the properties of God however this causes many objections particularly in light of the problem of evil
Swinburn still has not demonstrated that God is the best explanation for the universe because we can still question what explains God furthermore if we will always have something that we can’t explain why invoke God instead of just demonstrating that we cannot explain things such as scientific laws, Russell for instance reject the idea of trying to give an explanation for the univers at alland attempts to continuously develop and explain new concepts
Humes criticisms of the cosmological argument
The accuracy of cause and effect we have a hindered and often inaccurate junction between cause and effect as we often don’t know so we cannot apply it to the universe. He use the analogy of the assumption that if we put our hand out to stop a bus and the bus stops we believe they are the cause-and-effect However it may have stopped because someone rang a bell therefore we cannot apply our faulty understanding to the whole universe
The fallacy of composition (failure in reasoning making an argument invalid)
the aspects and parts of the universe that we observe possess certain traits and follow certain patterns however this doesn’t make it applicable to the entirety.
Russell similarly stated just because every human being has a mother, it doesn’t mean that the human base race as a whole has a mother “
It is overstepping the rules of logic to move from individual causes of individual things to the view that the totality has a cause .
Humes criticisms of the cosmological argument
The argument tells us nothing about the attributes of a necessary being
He used the analogy of a pair of scales with one and hidden, even though we know that the other end out weighs a kilogram we have no idea idea by how much
He also questioned whether the universe had a beginning at all he suggested that perhaps it has always existed in which case we do not need to cause
this argument is consistent with current scientific thinking about an infinite number of expanding contracting universe is known as the oscillating universe theory.
It is likely that Richard Dawkins would also argue a similar principle as he describes the universe as a “brute fact”
Secondary scholar countering the cosmological argument
Scholars like Immanuel Kant have pointed out that the cosmological argument relies on the idea of a necessary being (God) that doesn’t need a cause
This raises the question of why the first cause itself doesn’t require a cause, and why it should be exempt from the law of cause and effect
When suggesting the appearance of infinite regress it is all that concept such as Infiniti are probable as understood by developed scientific understanding for example the progression of time may not be as straightforward as we believe it should be and could instead be cyclical and therefore something in the future or past having caused something And therefore itself would eliminate the issues of infinite regress
Furthermore concepts such as the oscillating universe theory which argued that the universe is are constantly expanding and contracting on themselves infinitely also demonstrate that there is a possibility that infinity could just be the brief fact behind the universe rather than necessitating a need for a non-contingent uncaused being .
