Cosmological argument

Question 1

difference between aquinas’ first and third way

Answer 1

FIRST way
- God is a CHANGER
- God is the TEMPORAL first cause → removed from creation

THIRD way
- God is a CREATOR
- God is a SUSTAINER → without God the world ceases to exist, he is involved

Question 2

Aquinas’ first way summary

Answer 2

• COSMOLOGICAL argument → God is a CREATOR
• A POSTERIORI argument as it uses observations as evidence → INDUCTIVE argument with a PROBABLE conclusion
  ‘It is evident to our senses’
• Refers to MOTION → changing (being in one state and becoming another, ie a tree having no leaves and then growing them back in a cycle)
• POTENTIALITY → ACTUALITY
• Uses the REJECTION OF INFINITE REGRESS to argue that this chain of movers had a beginning, which Aquinas deduces is GOD
• Assumes time is LINEAR, with a POTENTIAL INFINITY

Question 3

part 1 of aquinas first way –> potentiality and actually

Answer 3

• Aquinas comments on how it is ‘evident to our senses’ that ‘whatever is in motion is put into motion by another’ → he makes OBSERVATIONS about CHANGES in the world he can see
• He describes it as POTENTIALITY vs ACTUALITY → when something moves from the two, it has changed it state and becomes something new, not physically moving
• He uses the example of wood and fire. In the state of wood it has POTENTIALITY and when it is MOVED it becomes fire in its state of ACTUALITY

Question 4

part 2 of the first way –> the mover and the moved

Answer 4

• He also comments that is not possible for something to ‘move’ itself, and this must be completed by an external mover, which exists as a separate entity
• Something cannot be potentially cold and actually hot simultaneously → ‘it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality’
• The mover is in actuality and the moved is in potentiality → cannot be both

Question 4

part 3 of the first way –> the problem of infinity

Answer 4

• The chain of movers and the moved cannot go on for infinity because ‘there would be no first mover’
• The problem of ABSOLUTE INFINITY is that time would be presented as cyclical, with no defined START NOR END → Aquinas dismisses absolute infinity through the REJECTION OF INFINITE REGRESS, which uses evidence to reject it
• He instead assumes time is LINEAR and accepts POTENTIAL INFINITY, which supports the idea of a FIRST MOVER

Question 5

rejection of infinte regress

why can it be rejected

Answer 5

• None of the items in the world are infinite → if nothing in the chain is infinite, the chain cannot be infinite
• If the chain was actually infinite, there would be no change/finitity, but we can observe it
• Aquinas believed in God, so the RoIR supports his own Christian views → potential infinity supports the idea of a start point in time (God), who is an unmoved mover
• Nothing else could be this mover, as it needs to be separate and removed from the chain

Question 5

first way conclusion

Answer 5

‘Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put into motion by no other’

• If you reject infinite regress, the chain of movers must have a FIRST mover
• There is no movement without the first, so without it the chain would not exist but through observation we know it does
• The beginning of the chain, the first mover, must be UNMOVED itself in order to truly be the beginning
• It must also be REMOVED from the rest of the chain as its creator
• The only being with such capabilities, to have already REACHED ITS STATE OF ACTUALITY…

‘Everyone understands this to be..

GOD’ !!

Question 6

‘aquinas first way proves god exist’

Answer 6

for
- Evidence used - A posteriori argument
- Simplistic argument → William of Occam, more probable arguments tend to be the simplest

against
- Can be multiple first movers → is the finite chain linear, like time??
- Concludes the God of religion is the God of philosophy: do not match up with qualities (omnibenevolent versus removed and uncaring’
- Impersonal force is described leading to Deism → this is NOT the God of religion

Question 7

summary of aquinas third way

Answer 7

• We know everything is contingent through observation.
• At some point there was nothing. Nothing originates from nothing so there must be a Necessary being.
• Every contingency is caused by another. This chain is finite (REJECTION OF IR) so there must be a Necessary being that created contingencies.
• This necessary being is God.

1. A POSTERIORi
2. INDUCTIVE
3. PROBABLE conclusion, through observation
4. COSMOLOGICAL

Question 8

part 1 of aquinas 3rd way –> Necessity vs contingency

Answer 8

• NECESSITY: could not not be
• CONTINGENCY: could be or could not be as it depends on something else (referred to as a possibility)
• It is possible for things to not be and be, so everything in the natural world is CONTINGENT
• Deduced through OBSERVATIONS (people, nature etc) that things are ‘found to be generated and to be corrupted’ (impermanent)
• By this logic, Aquinas deduces that if ‘everything’ can be and cannot be, ‘then at one time there was nothing’
• Nothing is infinite as the universe is contingent, so at some point the universe did not exist
• However, if there was nothing at some point, there would be nothing at all, ‘and thus even now nothing would be in existence-which is absurd’
• EX NIHILO NIHIL FIT → from nothing nothing comes, something is needed to create
• Aquinas uses REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM to strengthen his argument → denounce other outcomes to strengthen his own
• Therefore, he concludes ‘not all beings are merely possible’ and there must be ‘the existence of which is Necessary’

Question 9

part 2 of aquinas’ third way –> the necessary being

Answer 9

• Aquinas argues that ‘every necessary thing has its necessity caused by another, or not’
• He does not refer to the Necessary being, but instead the chain of causation
• Ie. concerning contingent being me, my parents are necessary for my creation but are contingencies themselves → all these beings are still contingencies, but are necessary for the chain of causation to continue
• Referring to this chain, he talks about how it cannot be infinite ‘proved in regard to efficient causes’, in reference to the FIRST WAY, and the Rejection of Infinite regress
• The chain of causation, much like the chain of movers cannot be infinite as
• Nothing in the chain is infinite
  If it were infinite there would be no change observed, but there is
• Therefore, he deduces - much like the first MOVER - there is a FIRST CAUSE
  This being is UNCAUSED itself and exists in its own Necessity → the Necessary being Cannot not be → not contingent
• No reliance on anything to provide its causation or necessity, removed entity → beginning of the chain
• Aquinas concludes that the uncaused cause, the one and only - Necessary being that could not not exist, that created all contingencies (providing their own necessity) - and therefore the universe - must be… ‘this all men speak of as God’

Question 10

kalams design argument

Answer 10

• God’s existence or is the material universe eternal
• Whatever exists has a cause –> Do not observe spontaneous creation
• Observation and scientific evidence supports this premise

Universe exists
- Atheists say the universe has always been there
- 2nd thermodynamics law: universe is running out of usable energy → if always existing, would run out already but still exists
- 2nd thermodynamics law points to a definite universe with a beginning
- Einstein theory of relativity
- Georges Lemaitre and Alexander Friedmann → universe is expanding
- Hubble: red shift, empirical evidence of universe expansions and a start from a single point in the finite past
- Leading cosmologists → Borde, Guth and Vilenkin: any universe that has been expanding throughout history cannot be eternal in the past and have an absolute beginning (applies to the multiverse)

Universe has a cause
- Both premises are proven to be true through empirical evidence and observation → Therefore the conclusion must be true
- The universe cannot cause itself → cause needs to be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, uncaused and powerful → THIS IS GOD
- Cosmological argument shows it is reasonable to say God does exists

Question 11

Similarities between kalam and aquinas’ design argument

Answer 11

• God created the world and is the uncaused cause
• God’s creation of the world is evident through observation
• Everything that exists has a cause
  There cannot be actual infinity, but only potential infinity where the universe starts from a point

Question 12

differences between kalam and aquinas’ design argument

Answer 12

• Kalam: Uses proven scientific data collected rather than simple observation using the senses to make the argument
• Aquinas: focuses on the contingency of all things rather than the causality → K:God can be the first cause without being the Necessary being

Question 13

the temporal first cause

Answer 13

Temporal = in time

• Way to understand God in the cosmological argument is to see God as being at the beginning the universe and starting everything off
• William Craig: we see the universe as a series of events with God positioned right at the very beginning

One idea of God is that God is constantly there and present, sustaining the world → if the sustainer God stopped existing, we would no longer exist
- The universe cannot continue without God constantly sustaining it
- However, the idea of God being the temporal first cause aligns with DEISM, not religion → the God of philosophy is not the God of Jerusalem

Question 14

frederick copleston and causation

Answer 14

• Causation ‘IN FRIERI’ → a cause starts a process but then leaves it be
• Causation ‘IN ESSE’ → a cause is in need for being SUSTAINED in order to work

Question 15

david hume - criticisms

Answer 15

1) THE FALLACY OF COMPOSITION
- ‘Like the uniting of several distinct counties into one kingdom’
- Whatever is true of the part is NOT automatically true of the whole
- Aquinas’ fallacy → he observes contingency in some things and assumes ALL things are contingent

2) Why can’t the universe be eternal?–> it is possible for something to be conceived without a definite cause

3) Like causes should resemble like effects → if the creator creates contingent things, why is the creator deemed Necessary instead of contingent like its creations.

Question 16

principle of sufficient reason - leibniz

Answer 16

• German philosopher, mathematician, theologian and scientist
• Created the PRINCIPLE OF SUFFICIENT REASON
• Asked why is there something rather than nothing, and came to the conclusion that the only satisfactory answer to this question is GOD
• Deduced that if something is CONTINGENT it could either be or not be → there must be a reason it is the way it is (sky is blue) as opposed to something else (sky could be green)
• ANY CONTINGENT FACT ABOUT THE WORLD MUST HAVE AN EXPLANATION

Leibniz’s argument therefore is:
- Any contingent fact about the world must have an explanation
- So the fact the world exists must have an explanation
- The fact the world exists cannot be explained by any of the things in the world

Question 17

leibniz cosmological argument

Answer 17

• Any contingent fact about the world must have an explanation (PSR)
• It is a contingent fact that there are many contingent things
• The fact that there are contingent things must have an explanation
• The fact that there are contingent things cannot be explained by contingent things
• The fact that there are contingent things must be explained by something that isn’t contingent
• C: there is a Necessary being

Similar to Aquinas:
Contingency cannot originate from contingency and there must be a Necessary being responsible → ex nihilo nihil fit

Different to Aquinas:
Aquinas Refers to the Necessary being as the cause but Leibniz deems it the explanation, not the strict cause