The Cosmological Argument (Observation)

Question 1

What is the definition of A Priori knowledge?

Answer 1

A Priori knowledge is knowledge that does not require experience or evidence to be understood.

Question 2

What is A Posteriori knowledge?

Answer 2

A Posteriori knowledge is knowledge that depends on experience or evidence to be understood.

Question 3

What does the Greek term “Telos” mean?

Answer 3

The Greek term ‘Telos’ means ‘end’ or ‘purpose’.

Question 4

What is the Teleological Argument?

Answer 4

The Teleological Argument is the argument for the existence of God based on the evidence of order and design in nature.

Question 5

What is the Design Argument?

Answer 5

The Design Argument is an argument for the existence of God based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural or physical world.

Question 6

What is Design Qua Purpose?

Answer 6

Design Qua Purpose is the idea that the universe was designed for a particular purpose.

Question 7

What is the Watchmaker Analogy?

Answer 7

The Watchmaker Analogy is a teleological argument which states that just as a watch’s design implies a watchmaker, the design of creation implies a designer.

Question 8

What is an Inductive Argument?

Answer 8

An Inductive Argument is an argument that reaches a conclusion based on probability, rather than conclusive proof or facts.

Question 9

What is the Cosmological Argument?

Answer 9

The Cosmological Argument claims that everything in nature depends on something else for its existence and therefore must have had a first cause or necessary being (God).

Question 10

What is the Unmoved Mover?

Answer 10

The Unmoved Mover is a being that causes movement or change without being moved or changed itself.

Question 11

What is the Uncaused Cause?

Answer 11

The Uncaused Cause is a being that is the cause of the universe but has no cause itself; it is eternal.

Question 12

What is a Necessary Being?

Answer 12

A Necessary Being is a being that does not depend on anything else for its existence; it exists on its own.

Question 13

What is a Contingent Being?

Answer 13

A Contingent Being is a being that depends on something else for its existence; it does not exist necessarily.

Question 14

What makes ‘a priori’ arguments true by definition?

Answer 14

A priori arguments are true by definition, as they rely on concepts whose truth is inherent. For example, “All bachelors are unmarried” is true by the definition of a bachelor. Strength

Question 15

Why are ‘a posteriori’ arguments considered strong?

Answer 15

A posteriori arguments are based on empirical evidence from the natural world, which provides a solid foundation for drawing conclusions. Strength

Question 16

How do ‘a posteriori’ arguments use inductive reasoning?

Answer 16

A posteriori arguments use inductive reasoning by drawing conclusions based on the weight of evidence gathered through observation, allowing for more flexibility and adaptability. Strength

Question 17

What does J.L. Mackie argue about ‘a priori’ arguments?

Answer 17

J.L. Mackie argued that a priori arguments cannot establish concrete reality because they rely on definitions rather than empirical evidence. Weakness

Question 18

Why does David Hume criticize ‘a priori’ arguments?

Answer 18

David Hume criticized a priori arguments by stating that without empirical evidence or experience, you cannot prove anything, rendering such arguments weak. Weakness

Question 19

What does Kant argue about defining something into existence?

Answer 19

Kant argued that you cannot define something into existence, meaning that we can’t simply say something exists by adding “exists” to a definition, such as claiming God exists by definition. Weakness

Question 20

Why can ‘a priori’ arguments be rejected based on definitions?

Answer 20

A priori arguments rely on accepting definitions before the argument works, but someone can reject those definitions (like rejecting “bachelor” as “unmarried”) which weakens the argument. Weakness

Question 21

How can observations in ‘a posteriori’ arguments be unreliable?

Answer 21

Observations in a posteriori arguments can be unreliable because our senses can be deceived, such as in the case of optical illusions, making it difficult to trust sensory evidence in arguments. Weakness

Question 22

How does the possibility of changing conclusions affect ‘a posteriori’ arguments?

Answer 22

A posteriori arguments are vulnerable because new evidence can change conclusions, such as how the early belief in a flat Earth was overturned when new observations showed otherwise. Weakness

Question 23

What is the key strength of ‘a priori’ reasoning?

Answer 23

A priori reasoning is considered strong because it relies on deductive logic and does not depend on potentially unreliable experiences. Strength

Question 24

Why might ‘a posteriori’ arguments be seen as stronger than ‘a priori’ arguments?

Answer 24

A posteriori arguments are grounded in empirical evidence and inductive reasoning, offering conclusions based on observable facts, which can be more convincing. Strength

Question 25

What is a major criticism of ‘a priori’ reasoning?

Answer 25

A major criticism is that a priori reasoning is based on concepts or definitions, and without empirical evidence, it cannot prove anything concrete about the world. Weakness

Question 26

What is a major criticism of ‘a posteriori’ reasoning?

Answer 26

A major criticism of a posteriori reasoning is that sensory observations can be unreliable, leading to potentially flawed conclusions based on inaccurate data. Weakness

Question 27

What is the cosmological argument?

Answer 27

The cosmological argument (or first cause argument) argues that God must exist because the universe requires a cause or explanation for its existence.

Question 28

Which philosopher is most associated with the cosmological argument, and who influenced him?

Answer 28

Thomas Aquinas is the philosopher most associated with the cosmological argument. He was influenced by Aristotle.

Question 29

Why does the cosmological argument infer (argue for) the existence of God?

Answer 29

It argues that everything in the universe has a cause, and since an infinite regress of causes is impossible, there must be a first cause, which is identified as God.

Question 30

What is an alternative counter-argument to the assumption that the universe must have a cause?

Answer 30

A counter-argument is that the universe could be eternal and does not require an external cause, or that quantum mechanics allows events to occur without a definite cause.

Question 31

How does the cosmological argument support its assumption that the universe exists?

Answer 31

It assumes that we can observe the universe and that everything in it follows a cause-and-effect chain, which suggests the necessity of an ultimate first cause.

Question 32

What is the first way of the cosmological argument?

Answer 32

The argument from motion/change states that everything in motion is moved by something else, and there must be a first unmoved mover (God).

Question 33

Why does Aquinas argue that an infinite chain of movers is impossible?

Answer 33

If there were an infinite chain of movers, movement would never have started. There must be a first mover that sets everything in motion without being moved itself.

Question 34

What is meant by "potentiality" and "actuality" in the first way?

Answer 34

Things move from potentiality (what they could become) to actuality (what they are), but this requires something actual to initiate the change.

Question 35

Who is the "unmoved mover" in the first way?

Answer 35

Aquinas argues that this is God, who moves everything without being moved.

Question 36

What is the second way of the cosmological argument?

Answer 36

The argument from causation states that everything has a cause, and there must be a first uncaused cause (God).

Question 37

Why can nothing be the cause of itself?

Answer 37

Something cannot be prior to itself or create itself—it must be caused by something else.

Question 38

Why does Aquinas reject an infinite regress of causes?

Answer 38

Without a first cause, there would be no ultimate cause or intermediate causes, making the chain of causation impossible.

Question 39

Who is the "uncaused cause" in the second way?

Answer 39

Aquinas argues that this is God, who causes everything but is not caused by anything else.

Question 40

What is the Third Way of the Cosmological Argument?

Answer 40

The argument from contingency and necessity states that everything in the universe is contingent (it could either exist or not exist), so there must be a necessary being that has always existed – God.

Question 41

What is meant by contingent existence?

Answer 41

Something that could either exist or not exist. For example, humans are contingent because there was a time when we did not exist, and there will be a time when we no longer exist.

Question 42

Why does Aquinas argue that not everything can be contingent?

Answer 42

If everything were contingent, there would have been a time when nothing existed. But since something exists now, there must be a necessary being that has always existed.

Question 43

Who is the necessary being in the Third Way?

Answer 43

Aquinas argues that God is the necessary being that caused everything else to exist.

Question 44

What was David Hume’s main criticism of the cosmological argument?

Answer 44

Hume argued that the connection between cause and effect is a habit of the mind, not a proven fact. Just because we observe cause and effect in the universe does not mean the universe itself needs a cause.

Question 45

What did Hume say about the idea of a "first cause"?

Answer 45

Hume questioned why the universe needed a first cause at all – it could simply exist as a brute fact, without a cause.

Question 46

Why does Hume argue we cannot assume God caused the universe?

Answer 46

We have never observed the creation of a universe, so we cannot claim to know what caused it. The cause of the universe is beyond human experience.

Question 47

What alternative explanation does Hume suggest?

Answer 47

The universe could be eternal or could have come into existence without a cause.

Question 48

Why did Immanuel Kant reject the cosmological argument?

Answer 48

Kant argued that the cosmological argument moves from what we experience in this world to a cause outside our experience, which is unjustified.

Question 49

What does Kant say about applying causation to God?

Answer 49

Causation applies only to things within time and space. Since God is supposed to be outside time and space, we cannot assume that He follows the same rules.

Question 50

Why does Kant reject the idea of a necessary being?

Answer 50

We have no way of proving the existence of a necessary being because we have no experience of such a being.

Question 51

Why does Richard Swinburne believe the cosmological argument is strong?

Answer 51

Swinburne argues that the cosmological argument is a strong inductive argument because it leads to the likely conclusion that God is the unmoved mover, uncaused causer, and necessary creator. He uses Ockham’s razor to suggest that the simplest and most likely explanation for the universe is God.

Question 52

What is the significance of the cosmological argument being 'a posteriori'?

Answer 52

It is based on empirical evidence from the observable world rather than pure logic or definition. Since everyone experiences cause and effect, they can relate to the argument.

Question 53

How does the Big Bang theory support the cosmological argument?

Answer 53

The Big Bang theory suggests that the universe had a beginning, which aligns with the cosmological argument’s claim that the universe is not infinite and must have a cause.

Question 54

Why is the existence of the universe an advantage for the cosmological argument?

Answer 54

No one can deny that the universe exists, making it a strong starting point for the argument. Also, the fact that we can measure time suggests that the universe had a beginning rather than being infinite.

Question 55

How does the cosmological argument satisfy human needs?

Answer 55

It provides an explanation for the cause of the universe and the origins of everything. For theists, it supports their faith and gives their existence meaning and purpose.

Question 56

What logical contradiction does the cosmological argument contain?

Answer 56

It rejects the idea of infinity by claiming an infinite regress is impossible, yet it asserts that God is infinite. This is a logical contradiction.

Question 57

Why does the cosmological argument fail to convince atheists?

Answer 57

It does not prove the existence of the God of classical theism; it only suggests a possible first cause. For Hume and Kant, it fails to justify God’s existence.

Question 58

What does Brian Davies argue about the cosmological argument?

Answer 58

He claims that the cosmological argument alone is not enough to prove God’s existence and would need support from other arguments, like the design argument, which is also criticized.

Question 59

How does Hume challenge the cosmological argument’s assumptions?

Answer 59

Hume argues that humans link cause and effect based on their own experiences, but this does not justify extending that reasoning to the entire universe.

Question 60

What does Bertrand Russell mean by the fallacy of composition?

Answer 60

Just because humans have mothers does not mean the universe must have a mother or creator. The argument wrongly assumes that what applies to individual things applies to the universe as a whole.

Question 61

How do scientific theories challenge the cosmological argument?

Answer 61

Newton’s first law of motion, the steady-state theory, and the Big Bang theory suggest that the universe is either eternal or the result of a random event, making God unnecessary.

Question 62

What is another name for the Cosmological Argument?

Answer 62

The First Cause Argument.

Question 63

Who is the most famous philosopher associated with the Cosmological Argument?

Answer 63

Thomas Aquinas, in his work Summa Theologica.

Question 64

What are the three ‘ways’ Aquinas used to argue for God’s existence?

Answer 64

1. Unmoved Mover 2. Uncaused Cause 3. Necessary Being

Question 65

Why is the Cosmological Argument considered successful?

Answer 65

- It is a posteriori (based on empirical evidence).

Question 66

Who were the two philosophers in the famous 1947 BBC radio debate on the Cosmological Argument?

Answer 66

Frederick Copleston (Christian philosopher) and Bertrand Russell (atheist philosopher).

Question 67

What was Bertrand Russell’s main criticism of the Cosmological Argument?

Answer 67

He rejected the idea that the universe needs an explanation, calling it a brute fact: “The universe is just there, and that is all.”

Question 68

How did Russell criticize the use of ‘contingency’ in the argument?

Answer 68

He refused to describe the universe as contingent or dependent on something else for its existence.

Question 69

What is the ‘fallacy of composition’ and how does Russell use it?

Answer 69

The fallacy of composition is assuming that what is true of the parts must be true of the whole. Russell argued: just because every human has a mother, it doesn’t mean the entire human race has a mother.

Question 70

What was Russell’s view on the need for a complete explanation of the universe?

Answer 70

He denied that the universe requires a complete explanation and supported the idea of infinite regress (no ultimate cause).

Question 71

How did Copleston respond to Russell’s criticisms?

Answer 71

Copleston argued that ignoring the question of the universe’s cause meant Russell was not engaging in the debate. He famously said:

Question 72

How did Russell counter Copleston’s response?

Answer 72

Russell argued that the debate was pointless because it depended on whether one was willing to ask “Why is the universe here?” He saw it as a meaningless question.

Question 73

How did Russell challenge the idea that everything requires an explanation?

Answer 73

He argued that if everything requires an explanation, then God must also require an explanation.