Cosmological argument

Question 1

What is the argument based on?

Answer 1

The idea that all things in the universe are contingent and do not explain within themselves the reason for their own existence, so must need something necessary to explain them.

Question 2

Explain Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason

Answer 2

1. Nothing takes place without there being sufficient reason for it. 2. As everything in the world is contingent, to have sufficient reason, we must get back to something that is not contingent. 3. This non contingent sufficient reason must exist outside of the world and the best explanation for it is god.

Question 3

Describe the background to the kalam cosmological argument

Answer 3

It was developed by 11th century Islamic scholastics al ghazali and was re-examined and updated by 20th century American philosopher William Lane Craig. It argues from the existence of the universe to the existence of god.

Question 4

What are the four premises of the kalam argument

Answer 4

1. Everything that began to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefor, the universe has a cause. 4. The cause of the universe’s existence must be god. This is a deductive argument which argues from the general to the specific.

Question 5

Explain Craig’s use of the second law of thermodynamics

Answer 5

1. In an isolated system the state of entropy (the amount of unusable energy available) increases with time and never decreases. 2. The universe of the past had a much lower entropy then it has now. 3. A universe which has existed forever could not be now in the present state of disequilibrium. 4. Ergo, the universe began to exist.

Question 6

What is Aristotle’s cosmological argument?

Answer 6

1. Either the universe had an ultimate cause, or the universe had no ultimate cause. 2. If the universe had no ultimate cause, then the chain of cause and effect had no beginning. 3. This is impossible, if the chain of cause and effect had no begging, there would be no chain. 4. Ergo, the universe must have an ultimate cause. This is an example of a Reductio ad absurdum argument.

Question 7

What is the main problem with the Kalām argument?

Answer 7

It supposed a cause which comes into existence with no cause, how did the universe begin, what is its cause? Modern astrophysics suggest this is the Big Bang.

Question 8

What are the names of aquinas’ cosmological arguments?

Answer 8

From motion, from cause and from contingency. They are inductive arguments which use Reductio ad absurdum to disprove the idea of infinite regress.

Question 9

What are the four premises of From Motion?

Answer 9

1. There are things in the universe in a state of motion. 2. Nothing can change by itself, they are all secondary movers. 3. If all things were secondary, there would be an infinite regress of movers. 4. If this is true, there would be no first mover, so no secondary movers. C. There are secondary movers, so there must be an unmoved first mover.

Question 10

What are the four premises of From cause?

Answer 10

1. Every event has a cause. 2. Nothing can be its own cause. 3. If the order of causes goes back to infinity, there would be no first cause. 4. If there was no first cause, there would be no causes at all, this is false. C. There must be a first cause, god.

Question 11

What are the first three premises of From contingency?

Answer 11

1. In nature, everything can exist or not. 2. Given infinite time, everything will eventually not exist. 3. If there was once nothing, nothing could come from it.

Question 12

What are the last three premises of From contingency?

Answer 12

4. As something could not come from nothing, there must be something which necessarily exists. 5. Everything necessary must be caused or uncaused. 6. You can’t have an infinite series of necessary things causing each other or there’d be no explanation for the series itself. C. There must be a being which has its own necessity, god.

Question 13

Give four strengths of aquinas’ argument

Answer 13

1. It does not seek to prove a uniquely Christian god, just an uncaused necessary being. This makes its more simple and easier to prove. 2. Inductive arguments are based on probability and our experiences of the world seem to support the argument, raising its probability. 3. Cosmological arguments are supported by scientific arguments like the big bang which argue that the universe had a beginning. 4. Even if an infinite regress was possible, we would still suppose it had an explanation outside of itself.

Question 14

Give three weaknesses of aquinas’ argument

Answer 14

1. Inductive arguments are only probable and do not prove the existence of god. 2. Why does infinite regress have to be impossible? 3. If we think about what god was doing before he chose to create the universe, we are drawn into an infinite regress where god actively chose not to create the universe.

Question 15

Give three points Hume made against the argument

Answer 15

1. We have no experience of the creation of the universe, so can’t speak meaningfully of it. 2. Even if the universe did begin, there is nothing to prove that it was god who caused it. 3. Sufficient reason is flawed, those looking for a sufficient explanation for the universe are looking for something that does not exist.

Question 16

What does Hume point out is the problem with causation?

Answer 16

We think of it as a first cause which sets off a chain of events and if we go back far enough, we will encounter it. This suggests that the first cause no longer exists, but no theist would accept this idea. It could be argued, however, that causation sustains an event, not just causes it.

Question 17

What is Hume’s fallacy of composition?

Answer 17

The idea that assuming that just because something is true of the part (things within the universe), it is true of the whole (the universe.) Just because things in the universe were caused, does not mean the universe itself was caused.

Question 18

What is the problem with the fallacy of composition?

Answer 18

It is not formal, if we take square tiles on a floor, it would be a fallacy to assume that because the tiles are square, the floor as a whole is square. But if we replace shape with color (the tiles are blue, so the floor is blue), the fallacy of composition actually stands.

Question 19

How does Kant oppose the cosmological argument?

Answer 19

1. Our knowledge of the world is limited to the world of space and time and we cannot speculate on what may exist outside of it. 2. The idea of a necessary being is a fallacy as the premise “god exists” is not a self evident proposition, so it is not contradictory to deny it.

Question 20

List three farther criticisms of the argument

Answer 20

1. The 1st and 2nd ways are contradictions, they say that everything has a cause, then argue that god is uncaused. 2. Could it not be the case that the universe is the unmoved mover which is uncaused, why does this have to be god? 3. Russell argues that the universe requires no cause/explanation, it ‘just is’ and is a ‘brute fact.’