The Cosmological Argument

Question 1

intro

Answer 1

Aquinas’s observation of the cosmos convinced him that its basic processes did not explain themselves

Question 2

features

Answer 2

• a posteriori - results are based on sense experience/are empirical in nature
• inductive - the conclusion is supported but not guaranteed

Question 3

fallacy of composition

Answer 3

inferring that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of part/every part of the whole

Question 4

Aquinas’s First Way

Answer 4

For motion to exist, there must be a “first mover”, which itself is unmoved by any other force

Question 5

Aquinas’s Second Way

Answer 5

There exists an order of efficient causes, where one thing causes another
The chain of efficient causes cannot go back infinitely
Therefore, there must be a first efficient cause that is not caused by anything else

efficient causes - regular, everyday causes

Question 6

Aquinas’s Third Way ‘ex contingentia’

Answer 6

1. We see that there are things which come about by generation and which perish
2. Not everything can be like this - if everything were like this there would be nothing now
3. So there is something that exists which does not come to be by generation and which is not perishable
4. But of any such thing we can ask how it comes to exist
5. The answer can only lie in something which exists of itself and is the cause of all things other than it which are neither generated nor perishable
6. This necessary being is God

Question 7

Russell’s criticisms

Answer 7

• way three commits the fallacy of composition
  just because what we see in the world is caused does not mean that the universe itself has a cause
  however, this does not apply to all arguments from the parts to the whole (e.g, ‘the wall is built of bricks, so the wall is brick’)
• rejects the claim that anything is necessary
  any being that exists can also not exist
• the universe exists as a ‘brute fact’
  the universe does not require an explanation

Question 8

Hume’s criticisms

Answer 8

• rejects the claim that any being is necessary
  any being that exists can also not exist
• all statements about existence are ‘synthetic’ - they are based on sense experience, so they cannot be ‘analytic’ (cannot be logically true)
• the words ‘necessary existence’ have no meaning
  whatever we can conceive as existent, we can also conceive as nonexistent
• the universe itself may be a necessarily-existent being (conforms with Occam’s Razor)
• 20 particles of matter - each particle has an explanation, but the collection is not itself a thing which needs an explanation

Question 9

Principle of Sufficient Reason

Answer 9

The doctrine that everything must have a reason for cause: every contingent fact about the universe must have an explanation.

Aligns with the Third Way.

Question 10

Strengths

Answer 10

• coherent logical structure
• based on empirical evidence
• shows faith to be reasonable - anybody with faith can understand the evidence used by the third way

Question 11

Counterarguments to criticisms

Answer 11

• (to fallacy of composition) not all such arguments are fallacious - brick and brick wall doesn’t commit fallacy of composition
• (cannot show that the existence of any being is logically necessary) way 3 talks about God’s metaphysical necessity instead of his logical necessity
• (the universe exists as a brute fact) science works on the assumption that there are no brute facts. If things in the universe are not brute facts, why should the universe as a whole be a brute fact?

Question 12

Occam’s razor

Answer 12

The rule that if there are competing theories, the simpler one is the better

Question 13

Metaphysical necessity

Answer 13

A form of necessity that derives from the nature or essence of things.
e.g. whatever is water is H2O, as the essence of water is to have two hydrogens and one oxygen