COSMOLOGICAL Flashcards
(23 cards)
key scholar that you need to name?
Aquinas
key scholars?
aquinas
Hume
dawkins
G.W. Leibniz
russell
Mackie
inductive argument
(teleological and cosmological)
inductive arguments are probabilistic.
The truth of its conclusion cannot be guaranteed by the truth of its premises.
this is as you are using observation so you can never have 100% certertainty.
probable possible but not 100% verifiable
what kind of argument is the cosmological?
inductive
Aristotle quote
“we do not have knowledge of a thing until we have grasped its why, that is to say its cause.”
so we cant understand the universe until we know its cause
what does Aquinas present?
he presents 5 ways for proving the existence of God
what are aquinas’ 5 ways
- Motion
- causation
- Necessity
- Perfection
- Design
which one of aquinas’ 5 ways do we focus on?
The third way
contingency and Necessity
what are the key points of the cosmological argument.
-a posteriori(reached post experience)
- inductive(probabilistic reaching a conclusion based on your observation)
- based in observation (empiricism)
what is the third way
it is the observation that all things we see in the universe are contingent; they are moved, changed and caused.
They do not need to exist, but they do. This applies to galaxies, stars, planets, people and trees.
from this observation Aquinas concludes that something must exist necessarily. It must be outside the observable universe because there is nothing in what we observe that can explain why contingent things exist.
he then concludes that this external reason must be necessary.
the third way argument fully.
p1 - Everything in the natural world is contingent- everything can exist or not exist.
p2 - if everything is contingent, then at some time there was nothing, because there must have been a time before anything had begun to exist.
p3 - if there was once nothing, then nothing could have come from nothing
c1- - therefore something must exist necessarily, otherwise nothing would now exist, which is false
p4 - everything necessary must either be caused or uncaused
p5 - But the series of necessary beings cannot be infinite or there would be no explanation of that series.
c2 - therefore there must be some uncaused being which exists of its own necessity
c3 - by this we all understand God
gerry hughes summary of cosmological
1 nothing happens without casual explanation
2 A satisfactory explanation cannot appeal to something which ‘just happened’ and was not caused. For example a satisfactory explanation cannot appeal to ‘brute facts’
3 The existence of the universe requires an explanation outside itself
4 it is reasonable to think of this ‘transcendent’ explanation as God
first strength of cosmological argument
-It is an a posteriori argument that uses empiricism
the argument uses empiricism - it is based on the observation that ‘everything has a cause’
empiricism is a popular method of acquiring knowledge in the modern world. e.g science uses empiricism.
“the epistemic imperialism of science’- Harrison
empiricism has become the predominant source of all knowledge
The fact the argument is grounded in empiricism therefore means it may be seen as acceptable in the modern world.
science supports the idea the universe has a beginning
however the final part of the argument is not based on empiricism. There is no observable evidence that the Christian God is the transcendent first cause of the universe. This is a leap of faith
second strength of cosmological
contemporary d support from Farther Fredrick Copleston, in a BBC radio debate with Russell
“in order to explain existence, we must come to a being which contains within itself the reason for its own existence, that is to say, which cannot not exist”
it is only God who can be the necessarily existent first cause of the universe
Copleston draws upon Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason - there must be a sufficient reason why there is something rather than nothing, why this particular universe exists
first criticism of cosmological
Bertrand Russells fallacy of composition: what is true of the parts is not necessarily true of the whole.
a fallacy is a failure in reasoninhg which makes an argument invalid. The fallacy of composition is the fallacy of inferring that something is true from the whole from the fact that is is true of part of the whole.
e.g hydrogen is not wet; oxygen is not wet, therefore water is not wet (fallacious argument
we cannot move from our observation of the parts (things within the world) to a conclusion about the universe
second criticism of cosmological
Bertrand Russell: The existence of the universe is a brute fact.
he argues that that the existence of the universe is a ‘brute fact’, a fact that cannot be further explained or explains itself
“I should say that the universe is just there and thats all”
for human beings, therefore, given our epistemological limits, the existence of this world must be treated as a basic brute fact that is incapable of further explanation
REBUTTLE - Leibniz- principle of sufficient reason- everything must have a sufficient reason for existing
Third criticism of cosmological
Hume : the universe itself is the necessarily existent being.
David Hume says that the universe itself is the necessarily existent being.
You do not need to go one step further back and say that it is God.
This approach conforms to Occams Razor - the simplest explanation that avoids over- complicating the argument.#
if something has to be necessary, why cant that be the matter which makes up the universe? Why does it have to be an unobservable God? (This is a leap in logic). The universe, like a vegetable, could have created itself.
REBUTTLE - Aquinas believed that matter would be caused by a necessary being and would still need God as an uncaused necessary being to cause its existence.
fourth criticism of cosmological
If everything has a cause, then what caused God?
the cosmological argument is based on the observation that everything mut have a cause. But Aquinas then argues that there is something without a cause - God.
Even if infinite regression is not possible, there is no evidence that the Christian monotheistic God is the necessarily existent First cause.
furthermore, Hume argues that the words necessarily existence have no meaning.
He argues there is no being whose non-existence implies a contradiction. By this he means the term ‘necessary being’ does not make sense a postereori. The words ‘necessary being’ have no consistent meaning. Any being claimed to exist may or may not exist.
REBUTTLE - theists would argue that it is only God who has the characteristics to be capable of being the First cause (E.g omnipotence, external existence)
fifth criticism of cosmological argument
Mackie: the five ways do not work
according to Mackie, none of the five ways work: they either depend on some untenable medieval physical principle, or just fail to establish the conclusion
for example, why do we identify the first cause as God?
” we have no reason for accepting this implicit assumption, Why for example might there not be a permanent stock of matter whose essence did not involve existence but which do not derive its existence from anything else?”
cosmological argument does provide proof
Aquinas’ argumnt is rationally and empirically based. His reasoning and appeal to observation provide strong support for theists.
Gerry Huguhes - cosmological argument is a more satsifactory explanation than the universe being a ‘brute fact’. This also relates to Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason. (everything must have a sufficient reason)
cosmological argument does not offer proof
only deductive arguments can give absolute proof. the cosmological argument is inductive so can never be absolutely certain. The argument may be unable to convince atheists; instead, it can only offer reasoning those who already believe in God.
Fiedists would argue that belief in God is a matter of faith, rather than proof - you should believe in God through faith alone, rather than seeking to prove his existence
Stephen evens- this argument does not prove the God of christian theism. At best, it points to a deist God
it does have value for faith
pope john paul 11 said that the reason and faitha re mutually supportive- ‘faith and reason are likd two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth’
Aquinas’ argument is rationally and empirically based. His reasoning and appeal to observation provide strong support for theists.
It is consistent with Biblical teaching that ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and earth’ (Genesis 1:1). It confirms the Biblical teaching that there is a ‘guiding hand’ that is directing the whole of nature and human lives in a purposeful way.
Aquinas’ argument gives evidence to support the ‘belief that’ God exists. His description of the universe’s design encourages ‘belief in’ God. (HH Price).
It does not have value for faith
For Fideists, rational arguments play no part in faith as they do not lead to commitment. Belief in God must be based on ‘faith alone’ - you cannot try to ‘prove’ God exists in this way.
Aquinas himself did not think the argument was sufficient on its own. There are some key ideas about the Christian God (e.g. the Trinity) which are revealed in the Bible and teachings of the Church.
Aquinas’ argument does not successfully address the Problem of Evil.
