Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
! cosmological argument ! - Coggle Diagram
! cosmological argument !
aka the argument from causation
questions why is there something rather than nothing? & what is the cause of the universe
the cosmological arg assumes that the universe has not always been in existence
follows that:
their existence needs to be explained
things cannot cause themselves to exist
its possible for things not to exist
A posteriori
based on observation/experience of our world
1 - that it exists
2 - that everything in it & the whole has a cause
Inductive
conclusion is probable but not definite - likely based on evidence
Synthetic
based on sensory data, 'I can see causes of things'
Arguments for the cosmological argument
1) Pre-Christian Greek Philosophers
Plato
argued there must be a prime mover capable of moving himself & all other things in he universe. The power produce a movement must come before the actual movement. The cause of this movement must uncaused, he believed this was a soul (higher than human soul). This was the source of activity rather than a creator
Aristotle
"the series must start with something, since nothing comes from nothing"
the prime mover is an intelligence that activates the world by its presence - eternal, good & perfect. He argues that there must be an ultimate source to all change, he separates the prime mover from the material universe - a prime mover would not be able to fit into a normal chain of physical causes
2) the Kalam argument
Al Kindi & Al Ghazali
P3 - the world must have been caused
P1 -nothing that exists can cause itself
Conc - this cause was God
P2 - the world exists
2) developed by William Lane Craig
argued against infinite regress
infinity makes no sense - if a library continued on infinite number of books & you took out 1 it would still contain infinite number of books. If the universe is infinity years old, then we could not have reached today, as we have no starting point
summery - he rejects infinite as impossible for an existing universe
3) St Thomas Aquinas
wanted to show that faith & reason could work together
1st way - from motion
1 - nothing can move itself (nothing can be mover & moved)
2 - an infinite chain of movers (infinite regress) would have no beginning & thus no ultimate mover
Conc - there must be a first mover
ultimately something is required to bring about change - God is the initiator of that change
the unmoved mover
2nd way - from cause
1 - the world is a series of events
2 - all events are caused (impossible for something to be its own cause)
3 - there must be a first cause (God)
4 - an infinite chain is rejected because there would be no first cause
Conc - God is the first cause of all that exists
God is the only thing that is not caused, he is the one upon whom all subsequent causes & effects are dependant
" now to take away the cause is to take away the effect"
Doctrine of Aseity = the belief that God contains within himself the cause of himself, he is totally self-existent
the uncaused causer
3rd way - from contingency
contingent: depends on something else, changeable, exists in time
necessary: eternal, reliant on nothing else, timeless
1 - there are things which are both possible to be & not be
2 - nothing can come from nothing, everything is dependant upon other factors (they're continent)
3 - whilst things exist, their non-existent is possible, since they were caused into existence by something else
4 - therefore there must of been a necessary being dependant upon nothing else to bring things into existence
5 - there cannot be infinite series of contingent causes because there would be nothing to bring them into being
Conc - there must be a necessary being that all contingent being rely on to begin
the necessary being
if the universe is contingent then it depends on something else to exist, it cannot be self-causing. it has possible existence - the something else must come before the universe
if x causes y - then x must exist first or y wouldn't exist
4) Leibniz - the principle of sufficient reason (alternative cosmo arg)
agrees with Aquinas that we cannot have 'infinite regress' as we wouldn't get a full explanation
"if you suppose the world eternal.. will not find in any of them sufficient reason"
even if the reason is unknown, there must be one
we haven't found the reason for the universe's existence within the universe itself
the cause must be outside of it - God
we require full explanation for things existing - we need to establish why there is something rather than nothing
the full explanation will explain not just 'how' but 'why' it exists
criticism
God of the gaps theory
"God of the gaps" is a theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence
5) Swinburne
its much more likely that there is nothing rather than something - we need an explanation
Ocham's razor - God is the simplest answer, therefore most likely explanation
criticism
Hick: "The atheistic option that the universe is just there is the most economical option"
focuses on the wonder of there being anything in existence at all
6) Frederick Copleston
P1 - things exist which don't contain the reason for their existence
P2 - this is true of all things in the world
said an infinite chain of contingent beings wouldn't be able to bring itself into being
"an infinite series of contingent beings will be... as unable to cause itself as one contingent being"
P3 - the explanation for their existence must lie outside it
says that the cosmological argument defines such a being that must & cannot not exist
Conc - this must be a self explanatory being (God)
supported Aquinas - rejection of infinite regress & especially contingency
you must question the cause of the universe or you are denying the reality of the problem
7) modern science - the Big Bang
advocates the idea of the universe having a beginning point
not just an infinite regress of events but a finite past
Arguments against the cosmological argument
Hume
3 main issues with cosmo arg
Why look for an explanation for the whole?
why do we need an explanation for the whole chain?
partial explanation could be sufficient - linking together causes & effect is arbitrary & random
humans are likely to see patterns in everything even if there isn't one
trap of assuming everything is neat & logical
is the concept of a 'necessary being' meaningful
there's potential for anything to not exist, BUT if there is a necessary being, why should it be the God of classical theism
Aquinas does an inductive leap - why is it God?
more than 1 prime mover? (criticism of Aquinas)
is the universe the necessary being - if yes agrees with Pantheism (God is in everything & everything is God)
why presume the need for a cause?
we cannot logically move from the idea that everything in the universe has a reason to the universe as a whole having a reason (Russel agreed)
we can imagine something coming into existence without a cause - not an incoherent idea
counter argument - Elizabeth Anscombe
we can imagine a rabbit without parent but it isn't possible in reality
Russell
doesn't except need to find an explanation for the existence of the universe
rejected Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason
"the universe is just there, that's all"
Copleston said he was denying the importance of the problem
concept of 'necessary beings' has no meaning - can only be applied to statements of logic
you can't fins a sufficient reason for the universe - "you're looking for something that can't be got"
analogy of the human race every man has a mother, so the human race should have one too but it doesn't
summary:
does anything really need an explanation
some things are 'just there' & require no explanation its 'brute fact'
arg from contingency is a failure in reasoning making it invalid
inferring that something is fully true from the fact that part of it is true - fallacy of composition
Criticism of Kalam arg
The challenge of quantum physics
according to physicists something can come from nothing (electrons coming into & out of existence without prior cause)
contradicts first premise of their argument ('nothing comes from nothing')
the oscillating universe theory
some physicists believe that he universe never 'began' - it is part of an infinite process of expansion & collapse
the Big Bang as an alternative explanation
if the universe came about because of the big bang hen the idea of God as the creator becomes less relevant
Criticisms of Aquinas' 1st / 2nd ways
the possibility of infinite regress
he rejects this but with little justification
Bertrand Russell
the earth is a 'brute fact' with no need of explanation n terms of a cause. Attempting to provide an answer is providing unnecessary meaning & purpose to the world
The inductive leap
he moves from inferring there must be a first cause to the idea that it is God - what's the basis or justification
Contradiction
argues that everything in motion must have a prior cause - then contradicts this by arguing for he uniqueness of God
Plurality of causes
perhaps there is a case, but it might be many causes/an imperfect cause
Criticisms of Aquinas' 3rd way
idea of a necessary, unique being is a logical impossibility (at least from our experience)
assigning 'necessity' to God means we are no longer presenting an A posteriori arg, or one that follows valid logic
idea of a necessary being is unverifiable & beyond knowledge
his argument depends upon belief rather than demonstration that an infinite regress is impossible
Criticisms of Leibniz/Copleston
Hume
you can account for instances of cause & effect, but to ascribe an overall cause to the universe is to go beyond available evidence
Russell
following the logic of he cosmo arg you can argue that all men have a mother, there must be a mother to all men - this is illogical
Leibniz arg fall prey to its own logic - if God is a sufficient explanation to the universe what is the sufficient explanation for God
Strengths & weaknesses of the cosmological argument
Strengths
its the simplest answer for the explanation of the existence of the universe
Aquinas & Swinburne
its A posteriori
based on evidence we can experience - gives lasting appeal as people will always ask Qs
its a solution for the universe as well as he existence of God
encompasses elements of the Big Bang theory
it emphasises the 'otherness' of God
doesn't fall to anthropomorphism or making God 'too small'
fits with God of classical theism
Weaknesses
the weaknesses if this arg are the weaknesses of inductive args
the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow the premise
just cause things have a cause doesn't mean the universe does - no experience of it being causes so cannot claim we know it has one (Russell)
perhaps the universe has always been here (Buddhism)