Cosmological

Question 1

what is the general strategy of cosmological arguments

Answer 1

• to reach a conclusion about the origins of the universe
• showing that God must necessarily be the origin/cause of the universe
• deductive arguments but often have a posteriori premises

Question 2

what is the difference between arguments from causation and contingency and list the arguments in each approach

Answer 2

causation —> rely on the causal principle and involve denying the possibility of infinite regress
- Craig Kalam argument
- Descartes cosmological argument from continuing existence
- Aquinas’ first way (motion)
- Aquinas’ second way (a temporal causation)

contingency —> use the idea that the contingent things in the universe must rely on a necessarily existing being to exist
- Aquinas’ third way (contingency)
- Leibniz’s cosmological argument (from the principle of sufficient reason)

Question 3

what is infinite regress and why is it undesirable

Answer 3

• when there is no start or end to causation, it goes on infinitely
• so we cannot reach any kind of answer as to where the universe came from
• epistemologically —> we cannot establish a foundation upon which to build our knowledge of the world

Question 4

what is the Kalam argument, with Craig’s addition

Answer 4

P1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence
P2) The universe began to exist
C1) Therefore, the universe had a cause of its existence
P3) If the universe has a cause then it must be an uncaused, timeless, non-corporeal, all-powerful and personal cause. This only describes God
C2) Therefore, God exists

Question 5

what are the 5 criteria provided for Craig that the cause of the universe must fit

Answer 5

1. uncaused –> if there is no infinite causation, then there must be an uncaused first cause, supported by OR, to not posit causes beyond necessity
2. timeless –> if the first cause is uncaused, then it has no prior cause so must be timeless
3. non-corporeal –> first cause must have existed outside the universe and be changeless, if it were physical then it would be changing, and so a part of this universe
4. all-powerful –> would have bought the entirety of physical reality into existence, without any material existing prior
5. personal –> relies on there being physical laws already in effect so they cannot account for a non-physical cause, since we cannot explain it scientifically, we can only explain it personally

Question 6

Craig relies on the concept of infinity being incoherent, how might this be

Answer 6

• Craig talks about Hilbert’s Hotel
• we understand that with time, the universe ages
• however if the universe is infinitely old, then when a moment passes it is still the same age, infinitely old
• so it cannot age
• if the universe is infinite then it is incoherent to talk about it having an age

Question 7

2 reasons why Craigs cosmological argument from causation is convincing/unconvincing

Answer 7

• infinite regress is undesirable
• God could have been the cause of the Big Bang so aligns with science
• infinite series is possible –> Big Crunch hypothesis
• Hume’s critique of the causal principle

Question 8

outline Descartes cosmological argument from causation

Answer 8

P1) From my existing at one time, it doesn’t follow that I exist at later times
P2) I am aware of no power in me which causes my continued existence
C1) I am not the cause of my continued existence so the cause must be external
C2) The external cause is either (a) something less perfect than God or (b) God
P3) I am a thinking thing and within myself I have an idea of a perfect God
P4) A cause must have as much reality as its effect
C3) My parents do not explain my continued existence as a thinking thing
C4) The cause of my continued existence as a thinking thing must be a singular, perfect God
C5) Therefore, God exists

Question 9

3 reasons why Descartes cosmological argument is or isn’t convincing

Answer 9

• the form of the argument is persuasive, it acknowledges possible options and gives reasons to reject them
• the TM argument establishes some of the ideas in the argument
• arguments for substance dualism
• infinite series is possible, so then our parents, as other finite minds, could be the cause of our existence so we wouldn’t need God
• Hume’s critique of the causal principle
• objections to substance dualism

Question 10

what are the 4 causes - Aristotle

Answer 10

material - what it is made of
formal - shape of it
final - purpose/reason for creation
efficient - that which brings all the causes together and makes it

Question 11

outline the Ancient Greek understanding of motion as change
- state of actuality and potentiality

Answer 11

actuality –> the state a thing actually is in
potentiality –> the state a thing could be
example of water as a solid, liquid and gas ice —> water

motion –> all things are in a state of flux (change) but this doesn’t mean movement for the Ancient Greek understanding of motion
- all things are in a state of flux between actuality and potentiality
- things can only be moved from potentiality to actuality by another thing in an actualised state —> ice and babies are both illiterate, but only babies have the potential to become literate
- since everything is in a constant state of motion (change), there cannot be a first efficient cause because something would need to cause that motion

Question 12

outline Aquinas’ first way (from motion)

Answer 12

P1) Things in the world are in motion
P2) Movement is a reduction from potentiality to actuality
P3) Nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality except by something already in actuality
P4) The same thing cannot be both potentially and actually in one state
C1) Therefore, a thing that is moved cannot move itself and what is moved must be moved by another
P5) There cannot be an infinite regress
C2) Therefore, there must be an unmoved mover, which is God

Question 13

why does Aquinas rule out an infinite chain of movers in his first argument, from motion

Answer 13

• in order to move from potentiality to actuality there needs to be intervention by something else in an actualised state
• something cannot be moved by itself
• so this chain of movement requires an initial start or cause
• but this cause must be permanently actualised, which only describes God

Question 14

outline Aquinas’ second way (from a temporal causation)

Answer 14

P1) We know through experience that the world contains efficient causes
P2) Nothing van be the efficient cause of itself (if it could then it would exist before itself, which is impossible)
P3) If the series of infinite causes was infinite, then there would not be a first efficient cause
P4) If there was no first efficient cause then there could be no subsequent efficient causes (it would contradict what we know from P1)
C1) Therefore, there is a first efficient cause, and this is what we call God
C2) Therefore, God exists

Question 15

what is the causal principle

Answer 15

the claim that every effect has a cause, the cause is the thing which brings the effect about. this is an a priori principle, doesn’t require experience, all of the cosmological arguments from causation rely on this principle

Question 16

outline the implication of the causal principle not fitting on Humes fork

Answer 16

• the causal principle is not a relation of idea —> not an analytic proposition —> neither necessary nor a priori
• so must be a matter of fact —> must be a synthetic proposition - contingent and a posteriori
• so we can only infer from experience that effects have causes, we cannot know this for certain and this isn’t necessarily always the case

Question 17

what does Hume mean by a constant conjunction

Answer 17

• Hume’s understanding of causation
• we have repeated experiences of effects having causes and the same effects having the same causes
• so we can infer that the effect has a cause
• we can only do this through the repeated conjunction (happening together) of these things

Question 18

how does Hume’s account of causation as a constant connection work applied to the Kalam argument

Answer 18

• if cause and effect can only be justified with reference to experience of similar causes and similar effects then we simply dont have access to any kind of experience giving us reason to argue that we can assign a high probability to the idea the idea that God caused the universe to exist
• we cannot certainly deduce that God is the cause

Question 19

how does Hume’s account of causation as a constant conjunction work applied to Descartes cosmological argument

Answer 19

• we dont need sustaining efficient causes to explain our continued existence
• bodily processes such as breathing could be an explanation for our continued existence
• our bodies would be caused by our parents in a long and possibly infinite causal change

Question 20

how does Humes account of causation as a constant conjunction work applied to Aquinas’ first way

Answer 20

• we need experience to know about causal links, we cannot use a priori deduction to prove the existence of any cause
• we cannot prove beyond. doubt what the cause is
• we do not have repeated experiences of God causing the universe
• we dont even have one experience

Question 21

how does Humes account of causation as a constant conjunction work applied to Aquinas’ second way

Answer 21

• if cause and effect can only be justified with reference to experience of similar causes and similar effects then we simply dont have access to any kind of experience giving us reason to argue that we can assign a high probability to the idea the idea that God caused the universe to exist
• we cannot certainly deduce that God is the cause

Question 22

outline the Big Crunch and how this objection undermines cosmological arguments from causation

Answer 22

• hypothesis that this universes Big Bang occurred as a result of a previous universe’s Big Crunch
• we can coherently conceive of time relative to a specific universe, with a start and end –> so avoiding the incoherence that arose with an infinite regress leading to the age of the universe being a paradox
• if this is logically possible then can avoid infinite regress
• so no way to deduce existence of a first cause –> since there is no need for a first cause, so cosmological arguments from causation fail to prove that God exists

Question 23

what are necessary and contingent truths

Answer 23

necessary truths must be true, the opposite is a logical contradiction
contingent truths may be true, the opposite isn’t a logical contradiction

Question 24

whats the difference between necessary and contingent existence

Answer 24

• necessary existence means a thing must exist, it is a logical contradiction to deny its existence, it depends on nothing else to exist
• contingent existence means a thing may exist, it is not a logical contradiction to deny its existence, it depends on something else for its existence

Question 25

outline Aquinas' 3rd way (from contingency)

Answer 25

P1) If everything that exists in the universe is contingent, there would be a time when nothing existed P2) If there was a time when nothing existed, there would be nothing now since nothing can come from nothing P3) Everything that exists in the universe is contingent C1) Therefore, there must have been something that necessarily existed when all contingent things did not (to cause their existence) P4) A necessary being has its own necessity (relies on nothing else for its own existence) P5) The being which has its own necessity all understand to be God C3) Therefore, God exists

Question 26

apply infinite regress to Aquinas' third way

Answer 26

- might be possible for there to be an infinite chain of contingent beings, such that there never was or will be a point where nothing existed - if this is possible, then the argument is defeated as we would not longer need to posit the existence of a necessary being

Question 27

what is Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason and how is it different from the causal principle

Answer 27

- every fact has an explanation that provides a sufficient reason for why things are as they are and not some other way - there is no fact without a sufficient reason for why they are true - different as he is looking for explanations rather than causes, not all truths have causes, but they all have a sufficient explanation

Question 28

outline Leibniz's formal argument from sufficient reason

Answer 28

P1) The principle of sufficient reason is that every fact has an explanation which provides a sufficient reason for why things are as they are and not otherwise P2) There are two kinds of truths (a) Truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is impossible. Their truth is revealed by a priori analysis (b) Truths of fact are contingent, their opposite is possible. We cannot explain them without reference to other contingent truths, they are synthetic a posteriori C1) Therefore, to provide a sufficient reason for any given contingent fact, we must look outside the sequence of contingent facts C2) Therefore, the sufficient reason for contingent facts must be a necessary substance that explains its own existence C3) This being is God and so God exists

Question 29

what is the fallacy of composition

Answer 29

- a mistake or error in reasoning that the properties of individuals will be the same as the whole that they constitute - paper is easily torn but a stack of paper isn't

Question 30

why does Russell claim that Aquinas' third way commits the fallacy of composition

Answer 30

- we can explain how individual effects are caused by efficient causes, but it doesn't follow that the collection of those individual causes themselves have a cause - the universe could just exist, and possible has always existed, as it is infinite

Question 31

why does Russell claim that Leibniz's argument from causation commits the fallacy of composition

Answer 31

- just because every contingent fact has a sufficient reason, it doesn't follow that the collection of those contingent facts (the universe) has a sufficient reason for why it is the way it is - the universe could just exist, and possible has always existed, as it is infinite

Question 32

outline Hume and Russells formal argument that a necessary being is impossible

Answer 32

P1) Nothing is necessary unless its contrary implies a contradiction P2) Nothing that is distinctly conceivable implies a contradiction P3) Whatever we conceive as existing, we can also conceive as not existing C1) Therefore, there is no being whose non-existence implies a contradiction C2) Therefore, there is no being whose existence is necessary Russell adds that P1) The concept of "necessary" can only be applied to truths or reason/relations of ideas, which are analytic propositions P2) An analytic proposition is one which is self-contradictory to deny P3) It is not self-contradictory to say "God does not exist" C1) Therefore "God exists" is not analytic, it is not a necessary proposition C2) Therefore, it is impossible for a necessary being (God) to exist