Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Cosmological Argument, bertrand-russell - Coggle Diagram
Cosmological Argument
Plato & Aristotle 
The earliest formulation of the Cosmological Argument (in Western philosophy) derives from Plato's Laws, while the classical argument is firmly rooted in Aristotle's Physics and Metaphysics.
Plato believed in primary and secondary movers. Primary were those which could move themselves and others while secondary were those which can only move other things.
Aristotle believed nothing could come from nothing- there must be a first in a chain of events of cause and effect. The sequence cannot be infinite as there would be a point where all activity is off. He believed in a true infinity, at some point there would be nothing.
Thomas Aquinas
13th century Italian philosopher who argued that there were 5 ways to demonstrate God's existence, with the first 3 being part of the cosmological argument. (From motion, from causation, from contingency).
His is considered the first deductive Cosmological Argument, "based on the impossibility of an essentially ordered infinite regress".
In his version, the relationship between cause an effect is treated as real, but not temporal.
David Hume
18th century Scottish philosopher who argued that it would be better never to look beyond the present material world.
Argued by the idea that if the material world resists upon a similar ideal world, that world must also resist upon other, and thus it turns into a never ending chain.
Claimed that if the parts of the universe are explained, then the whole is explained. In reality, all that exist are individual and causally-related events, not whole groups of them. Once an account for each of the individual events is given, there is no need for anything else, the whole has been explained.
Bertrand Russell
20th century British philosopher who argued for the idea of 'brute facts', things are there because they are there, they have always been.
Considered the universe itself as a brute fact, denies that it needs an explanation, it just is.
Refuted the argument that if parts of the universe are contingent, then the universe itself is contingent. This commits the "Fallacy of Composition"- which falsely concludes that if parts of something have a certain property, then the whole has that property.
-
-