Cosmological argument Flashcards
(9 cards)
what is the cosmological argument
The Cosmological Argument comes from the Greek cosmos meaning world/universe. it is a a posteriori argument and allows us to locate God beyond this universe and offers and explanation for the universe itself too.
The argument is based on the claim that everything existing in the universe exists because it was caused by something else; that ‘something’ was itself also caused by something else. However, it is necessary for something to have started this all off – something which did not and was not itself caused/created. That ‘something’ is God.
what did Aristotle believe
Aristotle believed all changes must come from some ultimate source. It is not possible for there not to be a first cause, as if there were not, there would be nothing. There is no manner in which the universe would come into being out of nothing owing to no action therefore there must have been an initial cause.
“The series must start with something, since nothing can come from nothing”
what did aquinas believe
Cosmological argument in the 5 ways
1- the unmoved mover -All things are moved by others, and that mover is moved by something else. You cannot have an infinite chain, so there must be an unmoved mover: GOD
2- the uncaused causer - All things are caused and since nothing can be its own cause (logically impossible) there must be a first cause (uncaused causer) on which all others depend: GOD
3- contingency- Everything which we can point to is dependent upon factors beyond itself and thus is contingent. These factors demand an ultimate explanation in the form of a necessary being, dependent on nothing outside itself: GOD
Criticism of aquinas
infinite regress - Aquinas argues that there must be an uncaused First Cause, but critics contend that this raises the question of what caused the First Cause
Unjustified leap - an uncaused cause does. not have to be god
what is the Kalam argument
islamic form of the cosmological argument
Premise 1: Whatever comes into being must have a cause
Premise 2: The universe came into being
Conclusion: The universe must have a cause
In this version of the argument it is important to note that infinite regress is rejected and that the cause of the universe (God) is believed to be finite, external and personal.
what is Gottfried Leibniz argument
he was a German philosopher and mathematician
he raised the question - ‘why is there something rather than nothing’ - why does anything exist at all
in order to address this he put forward a from of the cosmological argument
his ‘principle of sufficient reason’ - if something exists there must be a reason
“If you suppose the world eternal, you will suppose nothing but a succession of states, and will not find in any of them a sufficient reason” - suggests that if one assumes the eternal existence of the world, they will find only a sequence of events without any satisfactory explanation or ultimate reason behind them.
Richard Swinburne
“A may be explained by B, and B by C, but in the end there will be some one object on whom all other objects depend.” Swinburne 1996
criticisms of the cosmological argument
unjustified leap - Hume It is inconsistent to claim that you can jump (an inductive leap) from the cause of each episode and entity in life to there being one great primary cause. Plus, to go even further and call this God is even weaker and unfounded.
infinite regress - Surely there could be an endless series of causes? Why is it deemed necessary to stop at one first cause? - what caused the first cause
however aquinas rejects this
Is looking for the answer in a realm we cannot understand – the universe – either sensible or likely to bear any fruit at all?
Why assume that we even need to find a cause at all? As Hume says: “It were better never to look beyond the present material world.”
“The universe is just there, and that’s all there is to say.” Bertrand Russell
This is known as the concept of the brute fact of the universe.
Counter-criticism: It is surely just giving up on the great question to say, this is all we have and that’s it!
Not only did this ‘being’ cause the most extraordinary creation (we have not nearly discovered the depth of the deepest sea, let alone the universe). This would be an extraordinary force. Would it not be more sensible to suggest that there were a number of first causes?
Counter criticisms: this one force is extraordinary – it is ‘God’!
“Theism is simpler than polytheism”. Swinburne
strengths of the cosmological argument
its a solution - The argument offers solution for the universe as well as the existence of God. Unlike Russell who appeared to be suggesting that there is no point asking the question and simply accepting the universe for what it appears to be . The Cosmological argument at least offers an answer –which many have indeed accepted. “…If one refuses to sit down at the chessboard and make a move, one cannot, of course, be checkmated” Copleston
“God is simpler than anything we can imagine and gives a simple explanation for the system.” Richard Swinburne
science - The argument appears not to be in conflict with scientific research. It is perfectly possible for a believer to accept the concept of the Big Bang as they would suggest that god caused this
