Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Religious Studies: Philosophy of Religion and Ethics > The Cosmological Argument > Flashcards

The Cosmological Argument Flashcards

1
Q

Who created the Cosmological argument?

A

Thomas Aquinas

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Who is Thomas Aquinas?

A

1225-1274
Italian philosopher and theologian
He wrote a book called “Summa Theologica”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What type of argument is the Cosmological Argument?

A

Inductive
A posteriori

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is an inductive argument?

A

Inductive reasoning is where we
use premises to supply strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion.
Inductive arguments are probabilistic meaning they cannot be 100% proved.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What is a posteriori argument?

A

An posteriori argument is based on sense experience; we observe the world through touch, taste, hearing, smell and sight, and we draw conclusions from what our senses tell us.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

How many arguments did Aquinas argue for the existence of God?

A

5

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What are the 4 arguments that make up Aquinas’ cosmological arguments?

A

Argument from Motion
Argument from Causation
Argument from Contingency
Argument from Degrees

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What is the cosmological argument we focus on?

A

Aquinas’ Third Way; Contingency and Necessity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What is meant by the “cosmos”?

A

‘The cosmos’ usually refers to this space–time universe

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

How did Aquinas observe the cosmos?

A

The cosmos convinced him that its basic
processes did not explain themselves. Galaxies, stars, planets, moons: all things in the universe move and are changed, and those changes are the result of cause and effect.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What is meant by cause and effect?

A

A relationship in which one event (the cause) makes another event (the effect) happen.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Give an example of cause and effect and how would Aquinas view this?

A

The human race can go back centuries and generations but eventually something must’ve have started the chain reaction of humanity.
Aquinas would claim that this cause and effect was created by God as he is the only necessary being

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What is a necessary being?

A

A being that always has and always will exist and can simply just exist independently without relying on others

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What is a contingent being?

A

A being that has not always existed and relies on the existence of others.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Give an example of a contingent being and explain how they are contingent?

A

Humans are contingent beings as we rely on many factors for us to live, such as trees that produce oxygen for us to breathe

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

How do necessary and contingent beings relate to the cosmological argument?

A

In the Cosmological Argument, contingency implies
the existence of something necessary – God.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What is an infinite regress?

A

This is an indefinite sequence of causes
or beings which does not have a starting point; it has just always been an infinite chain reaction.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What is the infinite regress of contingency?

A

All contingent things has always existed and would just keep going back in time

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

How did Aquinas view the infinite regress of contigency?

A

Aquinas rejected it as he believed “we can’t have a world where all thing are contingent, because then (by definition) it could easily have never existed” meaning something (a necessary being) prevented the infinite regress of contingency; that being is God.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What is included in the first part of the cosmological argument?

A

Premise 1
Premise 2
Premise 3
Conclusion 1

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

What is P1 of the cosmological argument and how is it true?

A

Everything in the natural world is contingent.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Why does Aquinas fail to mention the supernatural world?

A

The Supernatural World is where spirits, Gods and angels live.
We cannot detect these things with our senses. At this point in the argument Aquinas is just leaving this option open to use later.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

What is P2 of the cosmological argument?

A

If everything is contingent, then at some time there was nothing, because there must have been a time when nothing had begun to exist.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

What is P3 of the cosmological argument?

A

If there was once nothing, then nothing could have come from nothing.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

What is the C1 of the cosmological argument?

A

Therefore something must exist necessarily, otherwise nothing would now exist, which is obviously false.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Explain the first part of the cosmological argument

A

In P2, Aquinas is claiming that all contingent beings/things have a finite lifespan; there is no contingent being that is everlasting, so there must have been a time when nothing existed. If there was a time when nothing existed, then nothing would now exist, because ‘out of nothing nothing can come’. That is obviously false, because vast numbers of contingent beings/things now exist.
As C1 suggests, something must exist necessarily to have created all contingent beings.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

What is included in the second part of the cosmological argument?

A

Premise 4
Premise 5
Conclusion 2
Conclusion 3

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

What is P4 of the cosmological argument?

A

Everything necessary must either be caused or uncaused

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

What is P5 of the cosmological argument?

A

But the series of necessary beings cannot be infinite, or there would be no explanation of that series

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

What is C2 of the cosmological argument?

A

Therefore, there must be some uncaused being which exists of its own necessity.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

What is C3 of the cosmological argument?

A

And by this, we all understand God.

32
Q

Explain the second part of the cosmological argument

A

In P4 and P5, Aquinas deals with the possibility that there might be an infinite series of caused necessary beings. That would also be absurd, because then there would be no ultimate cause of the series, and so no series at all.
In C2, there must be an ‘uncaused’ necessary being who brings into existence all caused necessary beings and all contingent beings.
C3 says this is God.

33
Q

What is meant by a caused necessary being?

A

A caused necessary being is one that depends on
something else to bring it into existence, but once created is everlasting.

34
Q

What is meant by an uncaused necessary being?

A

An uncaused necessary being contains the reason for its own existence, in that its essence is existence so its very nature is to exist – it cannot not-exist.

35
Q

Which 2 people criticized the cosmological argument?

A

David Hume
Bertrand Russell

36
Q

How many criticisms of the cosmological arguments are there?

A

4 criticisms
2 criticisms from Bertrand Russell
2 criticisms from David Hume

37
Q

Who is David Hume?

A

A Scottish philosopher
An empiricist, skeptic and atheist
He had a superb intellect and used it to rather
devastating effect in his various critiques of religion.

38
Q

Who is Bertrand Russell?

A

1872-1970
Philosopher
Wrote a “History of Western Philosophy”

39
Q

What is the Russell - Copleston debate?

A

A debate on the radio that took place in 1948 about Aquinas’ cosmological argument of contingency and necessity.
Between Bertrand Russell and Frederick Copleston

40
Q

How did Bertrand Russell view the cosmological argument?

A

Bertrand Russell dismissed Aquinas as a man
possessing little of the true philosophic spirit,
who before he even begins to philosophize
already knows the truth, because ‘it is declared in his catholic faith.’

41
Q

Who is Frederick Copleston?

A

1907–1994
Jesuit Priest
Wrote a “History of Philosophy”

42
Q

How did Frederick Copleston view the cosmological argument?

A

He argues that the cosmological argument is a good one for the existence of God and he was the most famous living christian thinker

43
Q

What was the first criticism of the Cosmological argument?

A

Bertrand Russell argued that the cosmological argument commits the fallacy of composition

44
Q

What is a fallacy?

A

A fallacy is a failure in reasoning which makes an argument invalid.
It shows that the argument in its current form has problems

45
Q

What is the adjective used to described an argument containing a fallacy?

A

Fallacious

46
Q

Give an example of a fallacious argument

A

It sometimes rains in Scotland
An umbrella helps keep you dry in the rain
So the conclusion is the England football team has a good chance of winning the world cup

47
Q

What is the problem with fallacious arguments?

A

If an argument contains a fallacy, this is a problem as because it means the premises doesn’t match the conclusion

48
Q

What is the fallacy of composition?

A

This is the fallacy of inferring that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of
part of the whole, or of every part of the whole.

49
Q

Give an example of a fallacy of composition

A

Hydrogen is not wet
Oxygen is not wet
Water is made up of Hydrogen and Oxygen so it must not be wet

50
Q

Why does Russell think the cosmological argument commits the fallacy of composition?

A

Russell wants to argue that the Universe itself could be a necessary object.
He says “if the universe itself is necessary then it doesn’t need a creator to start it off, so there is no need for a God to explain why anything exists

51
Q

How and why does Aquinas argue the universe to be contingent?

A

Aquinas believed that everything in the universe is contingent, therefore the universe itself is contingent.
This was important for Aquinas as the universe being contingent meant that it must’ve been created by a necessary being (God)

52
Q

Give the example in which Russell uses to explain the fallacy of composition in the cosmological argument

A

All the bricks in a wall are small, so the wall is small.

53
Q

How does Copleston respond to Russell and his wall example?

A

Copleston says that there is a limit to how different the whole can be from the parts that make up the whole.
So the example is clearly not fallacious, because here the whole (the wall) has the same quality as the parts (the bricks)

54
Q

In relation to the existence of God, how does Russell respond to Copleston’s claim that there are limits upon the parts that make the whole?

A

Russell argues necessary and contingent things are also completely different and arguing that we can get necessary things from contingent things is absurd as you aren’t getting necessary things from combining contingent things together.

55
Q

What is the second criticism to the cosmological argument?

A

Russell suggests that the universe exists
as a ‘brute fact’

56
Q

What is Russell implying by describing the universe as a “brute fact”?

A

The simplest explanation of why the universe exists/what caused it is that there is no explanation: the universe exists as an unexplainable brute fact.

57
Q

Define “Brute Fact”

A

A fact that has no explanation.

58
Q

What was the response given to Russell’s brute fact criticism?

A

Science works on the assumption that there are no brute facts, otherwise science would not work.
If things in the universe are not brute facts, then
why should the universe as a whole be a brute fact?

59
Q

What is the third criticism of the cosmological argument?

A

Hume and Russell both reject the claim
that any being can be necessary

60
Q

What did Hume say when rejecting the claim that any being can be necessary

A

Any being that exists can also not exist.
There is no contradiction in thinking that any being does not exist
This is true of God also, because there is no contradiction in saying, ‘God does not exist’.
So when Aquinas’ Way 3 requires God to be a necessary being, this is false logic.

61
Q

What is Hume assuming about Aquinas’ Way 3?

A

Hume is assuming that where Aquinas in Way 3
argues that God is a necessary being, Aquinas means that God’s existence is ‘logically’ necessary.

62
Q

Has Hume previously rejected the claim that any being can be necessary?

A

Yes, Hume has already rejected that claim in the Ontological Argument, so he thinks that Aquinas is making the same claim in his Cosmological Argument

63
Q

How does Hume describe the statements of the cosmological argument?

A

Hume describes the statements as synthetic

64
Q

What does synthetic mean?

A

Based on sense experience, rather than being ‘analytic’

65
Q

What does analytic mean?

A

Based on logical truth

66
Q

Give an example which supports Hume’s claim that the cosmological argument is synthetic

A

By saying that “Unicorns exist”, this can never be analytic (logically true) because the statement depends on sense experience in order for others to believe the existence of unicorns.
Whereas if one says “Kim Kardashian exists” we know this is logically true as we hear and see her in the media and on TV which is us using our senses, therefore must be analytic

67
Q

What is the response given to Hume’s objection that rejects the necessary of God?

A

Aquinas’ third way does not claim that ‘God exists’ is logically necessary – Aquinas in effect claims that God’s existence is ‘metaphysically’ necessary,
so Hume’s objection fails

68
Q

Define “metaphysical necessity”

A

A form of necessity that derives from the nature or essence of things. Aquinas’ third way in effect
holds that God has metaphysical necessity.

69
Q

What is Aquinas claiming by reffering to God as being “metaphysically necessary”?

A

In our experience, everything is contingent.
The existence of contingent things requires the existence of a being whose necessity is from itself and who causes the necessity in others; this is God.

70
Q

What is the third criticism of the cosmological argument?

A

Hume suggests that the universe itself
may be a necessarily-existent being

71
Q

What does Hume mean by the universe being a “necessarily-existent being”?

A

if something has to be necessary, why can’t that be the matter which makes up the universe? why does it have to be an unobservable God?

72
Q

How did others respond to Hume’s idea of “necessarily existent being” being the universe?

A

Aquinas had no problem with the idea that matter might exist necessarily (meaning that once created by God it is everlasting), but for Aquinas, matter
would be a caused necessary being and would still
need God as an uncaused necessary being to cause its existence.
This would be an adequate explanation without having to bring God into it and it conforms with the principle of Occam’s Razor.

73
Q

What is Occam’s Razor?

A

If there are two competing theories that make the same predictions, the simpler one is the better.
It is simpler to ‘make do’ with one entity (matter) rather than two (mind and matter)

74
Q

Summarize the extent in which Aquinas’ cosmological argument can defend itself against Hume and Russell’s criticisms

A

Aquinas can defend the Way 3 (with the help of Copleston) against the attacks of Hume and Russell.
We do not know enough about the universe to be sure one way or another.
so like all inductive arguments it is based on probability. It depends which you think is the most probable explanation for the universe.

75
Q

Summarize the weaknesses of Aquinas’ cosmological argument

A

Russell: Way 3 commits the fallacy of composition.
Russell (in the radio debate): We do not need to talk about a necessary being at all – the universe exists as an unexplainable ‘brute fact’
Hume and Russell: We cannot show that the existence of any being is logically necessary
Hume: The universe itself may be the necessary being.

Religious Studies: Philosophy of Religion and Ethics (5 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions