WJEC Cosmological Argument Flashcards
Summarise Plato’s contribution to the Cosmological Argument.
He posits the necessity of a “self moved mover” and establishes the philosophical notion that cause and effect are necessary mechanisms for the universe to exist in the way that it does. He also established that there must have been a first cause which started everything else off.
How did Aristotle contribute to the Cosmological Argument.
“Everything that is in motion must be moved by something. For if it has not the source of its motion in itself it is evident that it is moved by something other than itself ….. “
There must be some first mover as the series of being moved by something else cannot go on to infinity.
What is Aquinas’ first” way
First way from MOTION
MOTION means change – from one state to another.
TA thought something that was POTENTIALLY x, but not yet ACTUALLY x, could only be made actually x by something else that was already actually x. In turn that had been made x by something that was already x … and so on and so on …….
“The chain of movers cannot go on to infinity, because there would be no first mover, and consequently, no other mover”.
So there must have been a first, or prime, mover
Which we can call God
What is Aquinas’ second way?
Second Way. From CAUSE
Second Way. From CAUSE
“To take away the cause is to take away the effect. If there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, or intermediate cause”. In other words, without a first cause, nothing would exist
But as the universe clearly does exist, there must have been a first cause, which we can call God
What is Aquinas’ third way?
Third Way. From CONTINGENCY
Everything we see and experience in the universe is contingent. That means it depends on something else for its existence, and, at one time, did not exist. You cannot have an infinite regress of contingent events.
“Therefore, if at one time, nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist…. There must be something whose existence is NECESSARY (as opposed to CONTINGENT) This we can call God.”
What is LIEBNIZ’s Principle of Sufficient Reason
LIEBNIZ Principle of Sufficient Reason
“Besides the World, that is, besides the aggregate of finite things, there is some dominant unit…[that] not only rules the world, [but] also makes or creates it. It is superior to the world and, so to speak, beyond the world, and is therefore the ultimate reason for things. Neither in any single thing, nor in the total aggregate and series of things, can the sufficient reason for their existence be discovered.”
He gave the example of a book being copied. The copies do not contain within themselves sufficient reason for their existence. This is because the latest copy is copied from an earlier one, and so on…..
Only when we get to the original author do we find sufficient reason for the existence of all the copies.
Likewise, with the world. The world does not contain within itself sufficient reason for its existence. There must however be something that DOES, otherwise nothing else could exist.
What is the Kalam argument?
The Kalām cosmological argument:
1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence;
Therefore:
3. The universe has a cause of its existence.
4. Since no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a personal agent)
Summarise W L Craig’s library analogy which shows that an actual infinite cannot exist.
His library analogy demonstrates that there cannot be a library with an infinite number of books, no matter how many you add. Similarly, there cannot be an infinite number of contingent events in time, because all that is happening is more being added to the series.
What is Ed Miller’s contribution to the Cosmological Argument?
Miller considers it is philosophically necessary to arrive at the conclusion that the cosmos has a beginning. “If the world (or universe) has always existed, then an infinite number of years has already gone by”. But this is self-contradictory because an infinite series of years (or whatever time measurement is used) cannot go by or been completed.
Presumably his logic could be taken to include the impossibility of an infinite series of events prior to the “big bang”.
Summarise Hume’s criticism referred to as the fallacy of composition, and say why it is a weak criticism.
While one can ask the cause of each event in a series, one cannot then ask the cause of the series as a whole.
This is weak, because it is not what the CA does. You can ask the cause of each event in a series, and then ask the cause of the first contingent event in the series.
What did Hume have to say about the link between cause and effect, and why is this a weak criticism?
We know there is a link between cause and effect because we observe it operating in the universe now. However it is not safe to assume that this link between cause and effect has always operated in this way. We weren’t around to observe any such link at the beginning of the universe, so shouldn’t make any assumptions about it.
This is weak because it is very reasonable to suppose that effects have always had causes even if we can’t provide empirical evidence ourselves. Anscombe said we could imagine something coming into existence without a cause, but not without absurdity or contradiction of anything that happens in reality.
What was Hume’s valid criticism?
Even if it can be assumed there was a first uncaused cause, nothing can be said about what it was, and certainly there is no need to posit it was the God of classical theism.
How did Kant challenge the Cosmological argument?
We can only make claims about what we have experienced and we have not experienced the beginning of the universe.
We can not experience God by the senses, so cannot claim anything about him causing the universe.
He also objected to the use of the term “necessary” in Aquinas’ third way, thinking it used in the same way as in the Ontological argument.
The way that the term “necessary” is used in the Ontological Argument means that the entity referred to as God has been defined in such a way that it cannot NOT exist. The argument, although brilliant, has a flaw in its logic. Kant knew about this flaw, and therefore thought the Cosmological Argument must have it as well.
However, it means the opposite of contingent - containing within itself the reason for its own existence and not being dependent on anything else for its existence.
