Cosmological argument Flashcards
Aquinas First Way
A form of the cosmological argument presented by Aquinas, said to be from motion. By ‘motion’ Aquinas means change from the potential to actual state of something. such a change must already by caused by something that is already actual. If the cause was previously potential, it must in turn have been caused to become actual. An infinite chain of motion is illogical, there must be a ‘first cause’ of this change in sequence. This is God.
Aquinas Second Way
A form of the cosmological argument presented by Aquinas, said to be from ‘atemporal’ or ‘sustaining’ causation. As nothing depends on itself, things are sustained in their continued existence. Therefore, there must be a first cause , which does not depend on any other cause. This is God.
Aquinas Third Way
A form of the cosmological argument from contingency by Aquinas. Anything that exists contingently, at some point does not exist. If everything existed contingently , then at some point, nothing existed. If nothing existed, then nothing could begin to exist. Therefore, something must exist necessarily, not contingently. This is God.
Cosmological argument
Arguments for God’s existence that claim that unless God exists, the question ‘why does anything exist’ is unanswerable. Arguments from causation claim the everything must have a cause, and causal chains cannot be infinite, so there must be a first cause. Arguments from contingency claim that every contingent thing must have an explanation for its existence, and this can ultimately only be provided by something that exists necessarily.
Kalam Argument
A form of cosmological argument which claims that everything that begins to exist must have a cause, and that the universe began to exist because it is impossible for a temporal sequence of things to be infinite, so there is a cause of the universe.
Arguments from causation
Kalam Argument
Aquinas First Way
Aquinas Second Way
Descartes Argument
Arguments from contingency
Aquinas Third Way
Leibniz’s Principle of Sufficient Reason
Descartes’ Cosmological Argument
P1. The cause of my existence as a thinking thing could be myself, I’ve always existed, my parents, or God
P2. I cannot have caused my own existence as I would have created myself perfectly. I also cannot sustain my own existence, for then I would be God.
P3. I cant have always existed as I would be aware of this.
P4. My parents may be the cause of my physical existence but not the existence of me as a thinking thing. Neither can they sustain my existence each moment.
P5. I cannot have been created by a being less than God, as I have an idea of God within me and there must be as much reality in the cause as in the effect.
C. Therefore, God could only have created me.
PROBLEMS
The possibility of infinite series
Hume’s objection to causal principle
Fallacy of composition
The impossibility of a necessary being
The possibility of an infinite series
Mathematical possibility-
Aquinas claim that infinite regress is impossible
Aquinas claims an infinite regress is impossible because If there is an infinite regress, then time has existed forever. So there must be an infinite amount of time before the present moment. That means that to get to the present moment, an infinite amount of time must have passed. However, an infinite amount of time cannot pass. No matter how long you wait, even if you never stop waiting, you will never actually reach infinity. So there cannot be an infinite amount of time before the present moment and therefore there cannot be an infinite regress. Modern Physicists think that time could have begun at the big bang, which would fit with Aquinas’ argument.
Hume- Is the casual principle a matter of fact?
P1. If we see two types of event (X and Y) constantly connected then our mind is led by observation of one X to expect the other Y.
P2. The sense expectation provides our idea of necessary connection between X and Y.
C. This idea of a necessary connection gives us belief that X causes Y.
Hume- Is the casual principle a relation of ideas?
P1. If ‘every event had a cause’ can be known a priori, then denying it would lead to a contradiction.
P2. ‘Not everything has a cause’ is not contradictory, as we can conceive events that have no cause.
C. Therefore ‘every event has a cause’ cannot be known a priori.
Fallacy of composition (Russel)
P1. Every event that has happened has a cause.
P2. The universe is composed of all these individual events.
C. Therefore the universe as a whole must have a cause.
What does Russell say about the cosmological argument falling under the fallacy of composition?
Just because individual events require an explanation/cause, we cannot conclude that the universe itself also has this same property, requiring a causal explanation.
