Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Cosmological Argument (Principle of Sufficient Reason (Supporters (Paul…
Cosmological Argument
-
Cause and Effect
Aquinas' First Way - The universe is constantly in motion. Therefore there must be an 'unmoved mover' that set all other things into motion (i.e. God)
Given that nothing can simply pop into existence, everything must therefore have a cause external to itself. These causes cannot go back forever and so there must be a single beginning cause that must be from a being which itself does not have a cause
Criticisms
Blaise Pascal - Even if this was true, then it still would not prove the theistic idea of a God, rather it would only prove that the universe has a vague, undefined first cause'
Hume:
Observation - We only know the effect of something if we observe its cause. We cannot accurately guess the cause of something if we have not observed it being created especially the universe which goes beyond the spatio-temporal world
Problem of Induction - Aquinas is wrong to assume that all causes and effects are somehow linked. There could be multiple or the original has collapsed over time.
Anthony Kenny - Humans and animals do move without an external object acting on them thereby undermining Aquinas' first way
Russell:
Second Objection - Just because all the objects within the universe, this does not mean that the universe itself has a cause. We cannot apply our contingent knowledge of the universe to something that transcends that
Kant - Cause and Effect only apply to our sense experience. As an environment beyond time and space is beyond our experience, we cannot apply our concept of cause and effect there
Supporters
Anscombe - Cause and effect is easily observable in our daily lives and so is impossible to disprove
-
Infinite Regression
In the traditional cosmological argument, it states that infinite regression is impossible as it goes against reason and so there must be a starting point to the universe rather than just an infinite chain of cause and effect
Criticisms
William Temple - Although infinite regression goes beyond our comprehension, doesn't mean it can be ruled out. Many believe in God despite the fact that Christianity states that he is beyond all possible knowledge.
Zeno of Elea - Paradox of Dichotomy - In order to travel an finite distance one has to travel an infinite number of finite distances (in order to get to a place, you have to get halfway, to get there you'd have to get halfway there, and then halfway to there and so on ad infinitum
Hume - Infinity is an accepted part of mathematics. This therefore means that infinity exists making it not impossible. Why then is it rejected when applied to the universe?
Russell - Negative numbers go back to infinity just as positive numbers do. Just because there is a starting point (i.e. 0) this does not mean that there was nothing preceding it
Supporters
Kalam Cosmological Argument/Craig - 'Actual Infinites' are impossible - If we took a book out of an infinite library, theoretically the number of books would not decrease even though you still have that book meaning that a book would have to be replaced which is impossible given that you cannot add to infinity)
This seems to align with our current scientific understanding of the universe as the 'Big Bang Theory' states that there was a definitive starting point to the universe
Necessary Being
There must be an 'uncaused causer' that began the chain of cause and effect otherwise the universe would proceed backwards infinitely which is impossible
Mackie - If everything must have a cause, then why does God not fall under this line of reasoning? - Response - God is a necessary being and so is outside the world of contingency therefore he does not need a cause - Rebuttal - This is begging the question as you are trying to prove that God is a necessary being by simply saying that he is a necessary being
Russell - Necessary Proposition - The term 'necessary' has no real meaning outside of analytical deductive (a priori) reasoning - providing the reason for why things are here cannot explain their own existence