theme 1A the cosmological argument

Question 1

intro - the cosmological argument

Answer 1

• aposteriori, proof we use everyday
• inductive reasoning, based on experience
• empirical evidence, based on sense experience
• probable conclusions, always other possible conclusions

Question 2

P1 background to the argument

Answer 2

• this argument can be traced back to the work of ancient Greek philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato
• Plato: ‘now everything that becomes or is created must of necessity be created by some cause, for without a cause nothing can be created’
• Aristotle: argues that everything that moves is moved by something else, a series of motion cannot go onto infinity so there must be a first mover, all objects have the potential to change and become different (eg a piece of marble has the potential to become a statue), for the potential to be actualise there has to be a third-party, Aristotle called the third-party the efficient cause

Question 3

P2 Aquinas

Answer 3

• inspired by the work of Aristotle and put forward 5 ways to prove that God exists, the first 3 ways are cosmological arguments

Question 4

P3 Aquinas’ first way

Answer 4

• motion
• everything is observable in nature
• thing in a state of change or motion
• observed that things do not change off their own record, but are changed or moved by something else
• if we follow the sequence of movements / changes, we would arrive at the thing which started the whole sequence off
• all things in the universe are either moving or movers, we need to find the thing which started these things which must be something outside the universe (not moved by anything else but responsible for initiating the whole sequence of movement)
• Aristotle: the prime mover, Aquinas: the unmoved mover (God)

Question 5

P4 Aquinas’ second way

Answer 5

• cause
• observed a series of causes and effects in the universe
• he stated that nothing can cause itself (otherwise it would have to exist before itself, it would be like being your own parent - you cannot exist before you exist, you need something else to bring you into existence)
• he rejected infinite regress, the universe cannot go back forever
• he argued that there must have been a first uncaused cause, which he argues to be God

Question 6

P5 Aquinas’ third way

Answer 6

• contingency
• he identified the contingency of things, things come into existence and then later cease to exist
• contingent beings depend on something else for their existence
• he came to the conclusion that if everything in existence was contingent, nothing would ever have come into existence
• he argues that there must have been a necessary being to bring everything else into existence, which he argues is God

Question 7

P6 the kalam argument

Answer 7

• William Lane Craig
  1. everything that begins to exist as a cause of its existence
  2. the universe began to exist
  3. therefore the universe has a cause of its existence
  4. since no scientific explanation can explain the origin of the universe, the cause must be personal
  5. the being that created the universe must have chosen to, and must have divine attributes = God

Question 8

P7 WLC actual infinity and potential infinity

Answer 8

• he rejects actual infinity (no beginning and no end): if actual infinity was real, we would never reach the present moment, however the present moment exists therefore time cannot be actually infinite. This means the universe must have had a start, to come into existence the universe must have had a cause which he argues is God
• he accepts potential infinity (beginning but no end): like the future, events are constantly being added to the sum total (these are constantly being added to the total number of days)

Question 9

inductive arguments for God’s existence are persuasive

Answer 9

• offers a simple, logical explanation for the cause of the universe while science cannot, it makes sense to say that it is an omnipotent, omni benevolent being
• it is based on our experience of cause and effect, we can observe everything that has a cause
• the argument is based upon empirical evidence, this is good because it is evidence we can all experience
• it can be used as part of a cumulative case, on its own it may not prove God, but when you add it to the other arguments such as design, religious experience and reports of miracles, a strong case can be built for God’s existence

Question 10

inductive arguments for God’s existence are not persuasive

Answer 10

• criticised for using God to fill in the gaps, even if there is a first course there is nothing to prove that it is God, there may be a number of cases of the universe, Aquinas makes a leap from first cause to God
• Kant point out that we have no experience of the beginnings of the universe, so we cannot make claims about it
• scientific evidence is constantly developing, making the need for God as an explanation of things less and less HOWEVER science still leaves unanswered questions, God uphold his divine attributes so we do not question his power and divinity
• Flew’s leaky buckets, arguments for God make a bucket, but all of the floors in this argument puts holes in the bucket, it is pointless trying to fill a bucket with holes in it
• challenges from science are effective, people today require empirical evidence in order to uphold belief, the Big Bang theory and evolution gives us the impression of design HOWEVER science cannot explain why the big bang happened in the first place and science is not always correct, so the case for God is stronger, science and God may work as a cumulative case, God may have started the Big Bang to create the universe
• the argument is based on contradiction, it rejects infinite regress but states that God is infinite