what is the cosmological argument about
- starts with observations of the universe to point to a god
- why is there something rather than nothing
what does the Islamic kalam argument claim?
that there must have been a first, efficient or necessary cause.
explain Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason
- used it to establish why there is something rather than nothing
- he argues the universe needs a complete explanation as to why it exists
- he uses the example of an old book which was copied from the previous book, which was copied from the previous book etc. Even when one arrives at the first book, there is still no complete reason why it was written
- the same can be applied to the universe. Why is there something rather than nothing?
what did Aquinas believe?
- that since the universe is God’s creation, evidence of his existence can be found using empirical evidence and reason
- the first 3 ways of his ‘five ways’ cover the cosmological argument
what is Aquina’s first way?
- the argument from motion
- changes of state (from potentiality to actuality )
- e.g. youth to old age
- Aquinas argued that nothing can move or change by itself;there cannot be an infinite regress of movers;therefore there must be an unmoved mover which in itself cannot be moved or changed.
- he called this God
what is Aquina’s second way?
- argument from causation
- everything within the universe is the result of a succession of causes.
- as nothing can be its own cause (a logical impossibility) then there must be a first causes which is itself uncaused caused
- Aquinas called this uncaused causer, God
- There cannot be an infinite regression (chain) of causes.
how did Mackie explain Aquina’s second way ?
- a Spector watching a succession of railway carriages, each pulling the last (causing it to move)
- one never questions the fact that there must be an engine at the start
what is Aquina’s way three?
- argument from contingency
- everything in the universe is contingent; it can exist or not exist
- if things sometimes do not exist, it is possible that there must have been a time when nothing existed.
- but, how can something come from nothing?
- there must have been a necessary being (which cannot not exist) which brought things into existence.
- this is God
Hume rejects the idea of cause based on empirical evidence. Explain this criticism of the cosmological argument
- we can only observe a limited amount and shouldn’t make the assumption that cause and effect apply to anything outside of our actual experience
- there is no priori reason to believe that everything has a cause
- this is Hume’s inductive argument- we collect empirical data through our observation and experiences to suggest a probable conclusion
Explain Hume’s criticism that the cosmological argument commits the fallacy of composition
- just because the parts within the universe have a cause, it doesn’t mean the universe in its entirety has a cause
- e.g 5 inuit visit New York for different reason. First wanted warm weather, second is the husband of the firs, third is the son of the first and second, fourth is responding to an advertisement, fifth has been hired by a detective agency. Although an individual explanation can be given why each Inuit is in New York, it doesn’t make sense to then ask the one reason why the group as a whole are in New York (Paul Edwards)
explain Hume’s criticism that if God is the cause of the universe, then what is the cause of God?
- if God is its own cause then why can’t the universe itself be its own cause?
- perhaps the universe has itself existed forever and needs no cause other than simply being what it is
explain Hume’s criticism of why not accept the possibility of infinite regress
- this means that things in the universe are caused by other things, and that the sequence of causes has no particular beginning: it simply goes on endlessly.
- it is possible the the chain of causes has no beginning
what is Hume’s last criticism of the cosmological argument
- even if we were to accept the argument that the universe has a cause, this would not necessarily lead to the God of classical theism.
- it may only suggest a deistic God or cause
- this is antihero assumption/leap that Aquinas makes
what do Hume’s objections to the cosmological argument show
that the argument doesn’t provide any justified reason to believe in God but leads to agnosticism (the claim that we don’t know whether God exists or not) rather than atheism (the denial that God exists)
what is Bertrand Russell’s criticisms of the cosmological argument
- questions why there has to be a cause for everything
- just because every human has a mother it doesn’t necessarily mean there must be a mother for the entire human race
- the universe may have reached this point in its existence because of a whole series of causes but this doesn’t mean that there has to be one great cause behind it all.
- the universe just is, and that’s a fact, and needs no further explanation
which one of Hume’s arguments did Russell follow?
to move from ‘everything we observe has a cause’ to ‘the universe has a cause’ is too big a leap in logic
what do both Russell and Hume argue?
- that the CA jumps from a familiar concept what could be proven synthetically (using empirical evidence I.e.everything is caused by something else) to a conclusion which must be proven analytically (therefore there must be a god which is beyond human experience)
- we cannot use synthetic or analytic arguments to prove something which is unknowable
what is kants criticism of the cosmological argument ?
- he saw cause and effect as belonging to the phenomenal world (the world we experience as humans).
- this does not mean that this is the way the world actually is
- to claim that cause and effect is evidence for the existence of God is non sensical
two strengths of the cosmological argument
- it argues from empirical evidence (a posteriori) of the motion, cause and contingency within th universe
- Aquinas seeks not only to explain how the universe exists but also why it exists
why could overall the cosmological argument be religiously ambiguous ?
- As wisdom’s parable shows, where two explores find a clearing; both look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions- there is or there isn’t a gardener.
- in the same way, the evidence found in the cosmos can be ambiguous
as an a posteriori argument, it can only lead to…
a probably conclusion and doesn’t prove anything
