P - THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT Flashcards
(15 cards)
What is the cosmological argument
it argues that the universe must have a cause and that cause must be God
what is Aquinas’ 3 Ways (from his Summa Theologica):
Motion (change) – Everything that moves is moved by something. Must be a first unmoved mover = God
Cause – Nothing can cause itself. Must be a first uncaused cause = God
Contingency – Everything in the universe is contingent (it could not exist). So there must be something necessary = God
what was Aristotle’s beliefs
-believed that every movement depends on there being a mover
-The chain of movement must stop at something that is unmoved, yet causes movement
-This is the “Unmoved Mover” — a necessary, eternal being
- calls it the prime mover
what was Aquinas’ first way
Way 1 – Motion
Everything in motion is moved by something else
Infinite regress of movers is impossible
Must be a First Mover, itself unmoved → God
what was Aquinas’ third way
Way 3 – Contingency
Everything we observe is contingent (depends on something else to exist)
If everything were contingent, there must have been a time when nothing existed
But nothing comes from nothing → There must be a necessary being that causes all contingent beings → God
what was Copleston debate ?
Uses contingency:
Every being is contingent
The totality of contingent things must have an explanation
The explanation is a necessary being: God
what was Aquinas’ second way
Way 2 – Cause
Nothing can cause itself (would have to exist before itself – logical nonsense)
Infinite regress of causes leads to absurdity
Must be a First Cause → God
what was Russel’s response to copleston ?
Fallacy of composition:
Just because every human has a mother doesn’t mean the universe has a “mother”
“The universe is just there, and that’s all.”
Contingency of parts doesn’t prove contingency of whole
Accused Copleston of using meaningless metaphysics
“I should say that the universe is just there, and that’s all.”
what is David Humes criticisms ?
5️⃣ DAVID HUME – CRITICISMS
🔍 Cause & Effect Isn’t Necessarily Real
We only observe constant conjunction (A follows B), not causation itself
The idea of cause is a mental habit — not proof of metaphysical law
🧠 Against Necessary Beings:
The concept of a necessary being is incoherent
We can imagine a world where everything is contingent — it doesn’t contradict logic
📉 Infinite Regress Not Illogical:
It may seem strange, but infinite regress is not a contradiction
It may be more rational than invoking a mysterious God
“Why not stop at the material world? Why add God?”
what is Immanuel Kants criticisms ?
We Can’t Prove God With Pure Reason
The cosmological argument assumes that we can go from experience to metaphysics, which Kant rejected
Causality is part of how we understand the world (a “category of understanding”), but not how things are in themselves
You can’t step outside the universe to talk about it as a whole using human reason
🤝 Ontological Dependency
The cosmological argument often smuggles in the ontological argument by assuming God is necessary
But Kant already destroyed that in his claim that “existence is not a predicate”
strengths ?
-Based on empirical observation (motion, cause, change)
-Provides a logical, structured argument
-Fits with modern cosmology (Kalam & Big Bang)
-Avoids infinite regress (often seen as illogical)
weaknesses ?
-Assumes causation applies to the universe as a whole (Hume, Russell)
-Relies on outdated metaphysics (Kant)
-Doesn’t prove the Christian God (just a cause)
-Infinite regress is not self-contradictory (Hume)
What did Hume say about causality?
We never observe cause, just regular patterns. Causality is habit, not a certainty.
What was Kant’s main criticism of the cosmological argument?
You can’t use reason to prove things beyond experience. The idea of a “necessary being” is smuggled in from the ontological argument.
