Cosmological arguments Flashcards
(13 cards)
The Kalam argument
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence, from nothing nothing comes ex nihilo, nihil fit
2) the universe began to exist
3)Therefore the universe has a cause of its existence
Arguments FOR premise 2
-An actual infinite cannot exist in reality
-The universe began with the big bang
must be God as the only explanation for it is personal not natural
Against the Kalam argument
1- The possibility of an infinite series
2-Hume’s objects to the causal principle, we can conceive of things coming into existence without a cause
3-Cosmological arguments commit thee fallacy of composition
Against the possibility of an infinite series
We could remove every other day from the number of days that existed and the age of the universe would not have decreased
Against Hume’s objects to the causal principle
1)Just because it is conceivable doesn’t mean its possible in reality, I can conceive of H3O being water but it isn’t possible in reality
2)Being able to imagine something popping into existence is different to being able to conceive of it as it would require a coherent intellectual idea of it.
Aq
Against the charge of the fallacy of composition
it is unclear whether it commits this, eg all the brick in a wall are red so the wall is obviously red
Aquinas’ first way (proof from motion) AKA newtons first law of motion
1)some things are in motion
2)whatever is moved is moved by another
3)The chain of moved movers cannot go back to reality
4)Therefore there must be a first unmoved mover, which everyone understands to be God
Aquinas’ second way (proof from causality)
1) The world contains instances of efficient causation
2)Nothing can be the efficient cause of itself
3)The chain of efficient causes cannot go back to infinity
4)So there must be a first efficient cause “To which everyone gives the name God”
Against Aquinas
-Hume’s objection
-Fallacy
1)He doesn’t prove the existence of an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God etc
Counter-His 5 ways are only part of his proof of God, to establish a first unmoved mover etc
Counter 2-The five ways by themselves establish some characteristics of God
Aquinas’ third way
1) In nature there are things where it is possible either to exist or not exist
2)Given infinite time all contingent beings would have ceased to exist together
3)If there was once nothing, nothing could come from it
4)therefore something must necessarily exist
5)This chain of necessary beings cannot go back to infinity
6)Therefore there must be a being which has its own necessity, which men call God
Against the third way
The impossibility of necessary beings:
1)If a necessary being existed then it would be contradictory to deny its existence
2)We can deny his existence without contradicting ourselves
3)Therefore, it is not the case that a necessary being exists
Counter: It does involve a contradiction as it involves saying that an existing being doesn’t exist.
Descartes’ preservation argument
what preserves him
1)himself no
2)His parents or a being less than God no
3)Several things together are the cause no
4)God yes
Against Descartes
A-We dont need a preserving cause
R-We do require a preserving cause because if the conditions keeping from dying randomly were removed, people would die randomly
Leibniz’s contingency argument
1)Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause
2)The universe exists
3)If the universe has an explanation of its own existence then this is God
4)Therefore the universe has an explanation for its existence and it is God
