Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
The Cosmological Argument - Thomas Aquinas - Coggle Diagram
The Cosmological Argument - Thomas Aquinas
Way 3
A posteriori, inductive - based on observation
Aquinas observes that the universe exists
Universe can be verified by sense experience to show its properties
Way 3 = observation that all things in universe are contingent - moved, changed + caused - they aren't necessary, but they do exist
Goes for everything
Since first second of Big Bang, universe continually expanding + changing
Nothing stays same - is contingent
Aquinas: something must exist necessarily
Nothing we can see that explains contingency, so the explanation must lie outside the universe
External reason must be necessary
Strengths + weaknesses
Hume + Russell
Russell: commits 'fallacy of composition'
Assumptions that if it's true for part of whole, then it is for the whole
Everything in universe contingent, so whole universe is contingent
Fallacious: we can argue although everything in universe = contingent, the universe itself = necessary
BUT: Reichenbach - not all arguments = fallacious. I.e. a wall built from brick, so whole wall is brick - universe built from contingent things so universe = contingent
Hume = Russell: reject claim 'any
being
can be necessary'
Saying 'God is a necessary being' is the same as saying 'God exists' is logically true, which is false
Impossible to claim that any being is logically necessary
Hume: assumes Aquinas thinks God is logically necessary, but all statements about God are 'synthetic' so it can't be logically true
No guarantee that Aquinas' assumption is right
BUT: Aquinas rejected claim of ontological argument + said God is metaphysically necessary (necessary from fundamental nature) not logically necessary. In our experience, everything is contingent and these things require an uncaused necessary cause. Being can only be God
Hume: universe could be a necessarily existent being
Adequate explanation without the need of God
Why must the necessary thing be God and not the matter making the universe
Conforms to Occam's Razor: simpler to make do with one entity (matter) instead of two (mind + matter)
BUT: Aquinas - matter could exist necessarily but still only caused - God = still needed. Case for necessarily existing matter no stronger than case for necessarily existent mind
Russell: universe exists as a 'brute fact'
Simplest explanation of universe = is no explanation - unexplainable 'brute fact'
BUT: Science works on idea there aren't any brute facts. If none in universe, why should whole universe be one.
Other
Why only one necessary being?
Aquinas: could be any number of beings but only if we admit the sole necessary uncaused being to start with
Group of uncaused necessary beings?
Occam's Razor: multiple entities unnecessarily
Infinite regress of contingent beings without a first necessary being?
Can't explain something instead of nothing. No evidence an infinite past sequence could exist in real world. Aquinas: everything contingent so must be something before it
Universe exist externally/uncaused without necessary being?
Why does universe exist at all? Can't be supported by scientific cosmological theories, but can be by God (Principle of Sufficient Reason - Libenez: sufficient reason/cause for why anything exists, especially contingent things) Could argue infinite cycle of expanding and contracting universes
Value for religious faith
For
Shows faith as reasonable
Reasonable hypothesis that universe owes existence + nature to existence of uncaused necessary being
Observes universe in a constant state of motion/change + events have causes
Everything we see in universe is contingent - easily understood
Premises + conclusions leading on from each other. Is a posteriori. Uses empiricism as an argument
Against
Not all believers accept argument - say it's flawed
E.g. Kant: believer, but rejected Ontological argument (OA) - argued if OA fails so does cosmological argument, as idea of necessary being relies on OA
Karl Barth: rejected attempts to prove God, God only known through Jesus (scripture) - revealed theology
Aquinas' beliefs
Faith in God supported by reason, but faith doesn't come from reasoned arguments but through God's grace + accepting authority of Church doctrines
Knowledge of God from natural theology (reason + association) + revelation (scripture) - revelation = necessary as we can't reason our way through the Bible
The same God?
Is Aquinas' God the same as the Christian God?
Aquinas: necessarily existent being who is God of philosophy, is different from personal + moral Christian God
Objective + distant. Proves God but doesn't fit Christian beliefs + the Christian qualities are important
Is Aquinas justified in believing the two are the same?
It matters more to Christians what God's like - based in revealed + natural theology
The relationship between reason + faith
Reason: rational part of human mind - uses logic, finds facts, draws conclusions, making judgements etc
Faith: having trust/belief in something/someone
Some: belief in God = unreasonable - God is a being that can't be investigated by science. Truth = what we can know from science + senses - God can't be known this way
Others: faith only thing that gives certainty - fideism. Faith is all-important not reason when comes to matters of religion
Faith about passionate commitment, believers can't experience certainty through reason, must use faith
The argument
P1: everything can exist or not exist
Everything in natural world is contingent
P2: Everything contingent, then there must've been a time where there was nothing
P3: nothing from nothing - contingent things must have a cause
C1: something must exist necessarily
P4: Necessary things caused or uncaused
P5: series of necessary beings can't be infinite, no explanation
C2: must be an uncaused necessary being
C3: this is God
Explanation
P2 = core of argument
Contingent beings have finite lifespans - there was a time when there was nothing
Without a cause, nothing would exist
'ex nihilo nihil fit' - 'out of nothing nothing can come'
C1: something must exist necessarily to be the cause
P4/5: possibility of an infinite series of caused necessary beings
C2: must be an uncaused necessary being to cause other beings
C3: assumes it's God