Cosmological Argument Flashcards by Jonny Convey

Propositional and Non-propositional

propositional: ‘belief that’, factual belief, 100% sure God exists

non-propositional: ’belief in’, faith in God, trust in God’s existence, evidence+experience

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Basic Cosmological argument

[don’t use in exam]
P1: everything that exists has a cause
P2: the universe must have a cause
C: that cause is God
• an explanation of why there is something rather than nothing
• this is a ‘proof’

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

General information about the Cosmological Argument

• also known as the first cause argument
• a posteriori- based on what can be seen in the world
• it responds to the idea that the universe cannot account for its own existence
• concerned with finding an explanation for the universe

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Basis of the Cosmological Argument

• the earth cannot be self causing because it is contingent and only the existence of a ‘first, necessary cause and mover’ explains the origins of an otherwise ‘brute fact’

• the universe hasn’t always been in existence and for it to come into being an external agent is necessary

• this external agent is beyond being affected by anything and the question ‘who made that agent’ is considered irrelevant

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Pre-Christian Application of the Cosmological Argument

• both Plato and Aristotle both saw need for a ‘craftsman’ of the world

• both based on the idea of ‘motion’- movement, change

• believed it needed an ‘a prior’ mover to motivate it (based on process of logic)

• the first mover wouldn’t need any other mover- it is the prime mover

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Plato’s Cosmological Argument

• identified types of motion: round an axis, from place to place, growth and decay, something having power to move itself as well as others, etc…

• behind all of these there must have been some first pause, a power or mover

• BUT didn’t believe it was a ‘creator’, it was a soul, higher than a human soul, not physical but the source of activity in the world

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Aristotle and the Cosmological argument

(four causes)
• material: literally what it is made of, this has the potential for change
• efficient: how has its existence come to happen
• formal: the shape it takes, characteristics
• final: purpose
—final cause is important as it gives the best explanation of the object, purpose is an important part of what it is
—we don’t always know the purpose of things
—when purpose is fully realised, then perfection is reached
—everything has a purpose
• “The series must start with something, since nothing can come from nothing”

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Kalam argument

P1: whatever begins to exist has a cause
• self evidently true, based upon reason
• if false, then we could not explain how anything comes into existence
P2: the universe began to exist
• scientific evidence fro, second law of thermodynamics
C: the universe has a cause

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Background of the Kalam argument

• named after the Kalam (scholastic, speculative, rational study of Islamic Theology): “Every being which begins gas a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning”

• Kalam means speaking- seeking theological principles through debate and argument

• William Lane Craig: in ‘The Kalam Cosmological Argument’ (1979) reviseed the argument

• relies on impossibility of infinite past, if the universe is uncaused, then

infinite regress of causes
• suggests an uncaused, personal creator of the universe,

• influenced by Aristotle’s ‘prime mover’, originates in work of John Philoponus (490-570 AD)
-al- Kindi and al- Ghazali studied Aristotle’s ideas and applied it within the Muslim faith

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Finite, Potential Infinite and Actual Infinite

Finite- Limited
Potential infinite- exists if it is possible to add one more to a series of events, e.g. the future, as more events always added to history
Actual infinite- mathematical concept, collection with an infinite number of members, complete at all times, it isn’t growing ‘towards’ infinity, it is infinity already. some Philosophers say this is impossible

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

William Lane Craig’s first argument

first argument- the universe has a beginning
• the present would not exist in an actual infinite universe, because you cannot add to actual infinite
• the present does exist, as a result of past events
• universe must be finite
• therefore the finite universe began to exist, had a beginning
• whatever begins to exist has a cause
• therefore, the universe has a fist cause
• the first cause is God

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

(Craig’s first argument) Why did the universe have to have a beginning

• if it didn’t then it must consist of a series of events that is actually infinite and not potentially infinite
• it is no actually infinite because: past events would form a collection of events where each type was numbered the same as others: e.g., there would be just as many wars as other events: it has to be complete at all times but it isn’t because we keep adding to it
—so what is it then:
• the history of the universe was formed by one event following on from another event (successive addition)
• a collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite (because its not actually complete)
• therefore the universe must have had a beginning in time

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

William Lane Craig’s second argument

• if the universe had a beginning then the beginning was either caused or uncaused

• two options to explain this:
1. either a natural cause: laws of nature didn’t exist before the universe, so no.

choice was made by a personal being who freely chooses to create the world: God

-So, if the universe began to exist, and if the universe is caused, THEN the cause must be a personal being who freely chooses to create the world

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Ex Nihilo

• it is crucial to the cosmological argument that the universe was created ex nihilo (‘out of nothing’)

• if it was then the beginning of the universe was the beginning of time

• there must have been a personal agent existing outside time/universe to start the process (an agent who willed the universe into existence)

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Criticisms of the Cosmological Argument

• some argue that the Kalam argument misunderstands the nature of infinity and that infinity has to exist in actuality even if we cannot imagine it

• there is no need for there to have been an agent making a choice between creating or not creating a universe: the universe could just have begun, at random, by accident without any conscious choice being made

• even if we accept the argument, it does not provide evidence for the existence of a God with all the qualities and characteristics that theists claim

• it might be argued that the argument is self-contradictory since it denies the possibility of infinity existing in actuality, but uses this as part of an argument to demonstrate the actual existence of an infinite God

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Aquinas’ first way quote

“whatever is moved is moved by another…impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved…this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover…it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, moved by no other” (Summa Theologica)

Aquinas’ second way quote

“there is no case known…in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible…it is necessary to admit to a first efficient cause”

Aquinas’ third way quote

“if everything can not-be then at one time there was nothing in existence… it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist and thus even now nothing would be in existence…we cannot but admit the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity”

Aquinas’ first way

Motion

• P1: nothing can move itself, yet things are in motion , P2: an infinite chain of movers without a beginning cannot have started , Conclusion: there must be a first mover, we call this God
• motion is “the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality”, motion can be movement, changes of state, quantity, quality etc
• nothing can be both in potentiality and actuality
• something is required to bring about any change/motion

Aquinas’ second way

Efficient Cause

• the world is a series of events, none of which caused themselves, an infinite chain of events is impossible, therefore the sequence requires a cause, which we call God

• God is uncaused, all beings are dependent on him, not just in a temporal or linear chain but constantly dependent

• without a first cause, there could be no chain of events, meaning that there would be nothing

—Richard Swinburne:
- inanimate causation: something that has the power to act under certain conditions does so
- intentional causation: provides the reason why something actually happens, this is personal and motivated by beliefs and purposes
- “we know very well that if we ceased to form purposes and to try to execute them that nothing would happen” (Is there a God?)

Aquinas’ third way

Possibility and Necessity

• everything is contingent and everything’s non-existence is realisable, the presence of these is only explicable in terms of other factors, these factors demand an ultimate explanation in the form of a necessary being
• we can’t imagine an infinite series of contingent causes because all possible occurrences would have occurred, including the non-existence of all contingent things
• God’s existence is established de re, demanded by the nature of the universe
-F.C. Copleston
-a necessary being is one that must, and cannot not, exist
-there is no reason for any contingent thing to have to exist
-contingent beings are capable of existing or not existing, there is no impetus (reason, driving force) for anything to exist

Copleston on possibility and necessity quote

“if we don’t postulate a necessary being we do not explain the presence here and now of beings capable of existing or not existing. Therefore, we must affirm the existence of a being which is absolutely necessary”

Gottfried Leibniz and sufficient reason

1710 principle of sufficient 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” (Théodicée)

• even if the universe had always existed, it would still require an explanation, a reason for there to be something rather than nothing
• there is nothing in the universe to explain its existence
• a sufficient reason is a full reason, not a partial one
• Leibniz pushes to find an explanation, not just of how things came to be, but why

-However: no forms of the cosmological argument answer why God created the universe
	-Christian tradition: the world is an expression of God’s perfect love

Infinite regress

an infinite chain of events going back in time
• is unable to provide a complete explanation of the universe
• if we were satisfied with infinite regress, we would never arrive at an explanation for the universe

F.C. Copleston

supported Aquinas’ rejection of infinite regress because an infinite chain of contingent beings could only consist of contingent beings, all of which could never have brought themselves into existence • “If you add up contingent beings to infinity you still get contingent beings, not a necessary being. An infinite series of contingent beings will be, to my way of thinking, as unable to cause itself as one contingent being” (in debate with Russell) -Copleston’s cosmological argument: P1: some things exist that do not contain the reason for their existence within themselves P2: the world is the totality of such objects P3: the explanation for the existence of everything must lie outside of the universe C: this reason must be a necessary being, containing the reason for its own existence [Refer to Table in Notes for Debate with Russel]

Swinburne on the cosmological argument

the need for an explanation lies in the fact that it is more likely to be nothing than something • “it is extraordinary that there should exist anything at all. Surely the most natural state of affairs is simply nothing” • “If we can explain the many bits of the universe by one simple being which keeps them in existence, we should do so- even if inevitably we cannot explain the existence of that simple being” (Is there a God? 1996)

Modern science and the cosmological argument

• Big Bang theory: proposes a finite history of the universe, ruling out infinite regress • if the universe has an infinite history, then an infinite number of years must have already passed passed to arrive at the present, which cannot be true because we are in the present

Hume on the Cosmological argument quotes (delete after quotation bank)

• “custom is the great guide of life” • “what we know begins with our senses” • “A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence”

Hume’s rejection of the idea that we can know the cause

-we cannot have experienced the actual cause -we naturally make connection between two related events as being cause and effect, we assume a causal relationship -we didn’t experience creation so we can’t claim knowledge of it -cosmological argument goes too far beyond our experience

Hume and Russell’s rejection of the idea of moving from individual causes to a cause for the totality

Hume: -every object in the universe having a cause does not mean that the universe does -for Hume, explaining the parts explains the whole Russell: -one cannot move from causes of individual objects to causes of the totality -fallacy of composition: to mistakenly conclude that what applies to the parts applies to the whole —“Every man who exists has a mother…but obviously the human race hasn’t a mother- that’s a different logical sphere”

Hume’s rejection of the universe having a beginning and Russell’s rejection of the principle of sufficient reason

Hume: -for all we know it could always have existed -in this case, it would be meaningless to ask about a cause -oscillating universe theory: an infinite series of expanding and contracting universes Russell: -challenged view that universe requires an explanation -the universe is simply there and owes no explanation —“the universe is just there, and that’s all”

Hume’s rejection of the Christian God’s necessity and Russell’s rejection of the concept of a necessary being

Hume: -even if the universe had a cause, there is no reason that it must be the Christian God -could be a plurality of causes Russell: -the word ‘necessary’ could not be meaningfully applied to things

Hume on the difference between Reality and Speculation

-we assume cause-effect relationships by habit -not all effects have causes, this is a ‘matter of logic’ -‘fallacy of affirmation of the consequent’: at a bus stop, having signalled with your hand, you could (reasonably) say you caused the bus to stop. However, there is no way of affirming with certainty anything but a correlation between the two events -the relationship between cause and effect is speculative, not certain

(problems with the Cosmological argument) the universe is not contingent

matter and energy are eternal particular objects are contingent, but that of which they’re composed is not Why can’t some contingent objects have lasted through all past time the first cause doesn’t have to still exist anyway

(problems with the Cosmological argument) observation

the argument uses observations of this world to understand things outside of it surely God would also require a cause

Mackie on the Cosmological argument

a train with an infinite number of carriages could work as long as there was an engine somewhere therefore, infinite regress is not problematic

Anthony Kenny (The Five Ways, 1969) on the Cosmological argument

Aquinas: medieval science thought in terms of a hierarchy of causes however -x doesn’t have to be caused by x -a stick becoming hot is caused not by heat, but by friction or electricity -“it is not dead men who commit murders”