The Cosmological Argument Flashcards
(17 cards)
What does cosmos mean
Universe
What type of argument/reasoning is the cosmological argument?
A posteriori, Inductive
Who are the main Cosmological Argument Philosophers?
Aquinas, Copleston, Leibniz, William Lane Craig
What are Aquinas’ 3 Cosmological arguments called?
Argument from motion
Argument from causation
Argument from Contingency
What does reductio ad absurdum mean?
Proof by contradiction (doesn’t make sense)
Give a summary of the premises of Aquinas’ argument from Motion
- We observe change/movement in the universe
- Objects can’t generate their own change/movement
- so each thing which moves is moved by another
- This chain of movers can’t go back to infinity as there wouldn’t be a start of the movement so there’d be no movement (rejecting infinite regress)
- There must be a first mover, a Prime Mover itself unmoved
Conclusion: This is God (as God is transcendent)
Give a summary of the premises of Aquinas’ argument from Causation
- Everything has a cause.
- Nothing can cause itself
- There can’t be an infinite regress of causes as there’d be no first cause.
- Therefore there must be a first uncaused Cause.
Conclusion: This is God
Give a summary of the premises of Aquinas’ argument from Contingency
- Things in the world exist contingently
- if all things that exist could not exist, then at some point nothing existed
- If at some point previously nothing existed then nothing would exist now - but this is false.
- Therefore everything can’t be contingent, there must be some necessary being
Conclusion: Thing is God
Strengths of Aquinas’ argument from contingency
Emphasises dependence on God
As everything is contingent, it requires either a necessary being to account for existence now or the universe is infinitely old.
What’s the difference between a temporal first mover and an ontologically ultimate first mover?
Temporal first mover = only sets off the motion at the beginning
Ontologically ultimate first mover = Continues to set off these causes
What is the difference between cause in fieri and cause in esse?
Cause in fieri = only starts the process
Cause in esse = sustains the process
What is the analogy for cause in esse?
God being a train engine continually pushing along things.
What type of mover and cause does Copleston argue God is?
Ontologically ultimate first mover, cause in esse
Strengths of Copleston’s interpretation
- Shows God must still exist
- Fits with God being a necessary being
- Everything in the present is dependant on God’s existence
Give a summary of the premises of Aquinas’ argument from Contingency
- Things in the world exist contingently
- if all things that exist could not exist, then at some point nothing existed
- If at some point previously nothing existed then nothing would exist now - but this is false.
- Therefore everything can’t be contingent, there must be some necessary being
Conclusion: Thing is God
Strengths of Aquinas’ argument from Contingency
- Emphasises dependence on God
- As everything is contingent, it requires either a necessary being to account for existence now or the universe is infinitely old.
Give a summary of the premises of Leibniz’s Principle of Sufficient Reason
- Contingent things exist and don’t provide a sufficient reason for their own existence.
- The universe is made up of contingent things
- so the universe can’t provide a sufficient reason for it’s own existence.
- There can’t be an infinite regress of sufficient reasons
- so, the sufficient reason for the universe must be external to the universe and must be an existent being.
- There must be a necessary being that is the reason for it’s own existence.
Conclusion: This is God
