Cosmological argument
Aquinas' way 3
Basis of argument
a posteriori and inductive -- based in observation that the universe exists
observation that all things that we see are contingent (moved, changed, caused), do not need to exist but they do
from Aquinas' observation, all things in the world are contingent, therefore something must exist necessarily in order to cause these contingent things to exist
argument:
everything can exist or not (everything is contingent), then there was nothing once, nothing could come from nothing, something must exist necessarily
everything necessary must either be caused or uncaused, cannot be infinite, must be uncaused being which exists necessarily -- must be God
Criticisms from Hume and Russell
Fallacy of composition
"every man who exists has a mother, and it seems to me your argument is that therefore the human race must have a mother, but obviously the human rase hasn't a mother - that's a different logical sphere" - Russell
Way 3 -- Aquinas argues (1) everything in the universe is contingent (2) the universe as a whole is contingent
Russell claims that -- (1) everything in the universe is contingent (2) but the universe as a whole is necessary
Rejection that any being is necessary
any being that exists can also not exist -- there is no contradiction in saying 'God does not exist'
WEAKNESS: Hume's rejection of Aquinas' argument of God as a necessary being is flawed as Aquinas meant that God's existence is 'logically' necessary
Reply to Hume (and Russell)
metaphysical necessity
a form of necessity that derives from the nature or essence of things: Aquinas is claiming that in our universe everything is contingent, so it requires the existence of a being whose necessity is from itself and who causes the necessity in others
HUME'S CRITICISM 3: universe itself is a necessarily-existent being
"why may not the material universe be the necessarily-existent Being...?"
conforms with the principle of Occam's razor
CRITICISM 4: Russell - the universe exists as a brute fact
the universe exists with no explanation
reply to Russell: science works on the assumption that there are no brute facts -- if things in the universe are not brute facts, then how is the universe a brute fact?
Status as proof
inductive argument for the existence of God -- more probability than proof (proof would need to be a priori like the Ontological argument)
could be proof based on overwhelming probability -- we have no direct observational evidence that quarks exist, but there is indirect evidence for this existence which is so overwhelming that it can be considered as a proof
nothing happens without some causal explanation - it is reasonable to think that this explanation is God
"chain of explanations will be complete and satisfying only if in the end one reaches something which has not 'just happened', simply come into existence; in short, the chain will end when it reaches something which cannot not exist ,that is to say exists necessarily. In short the explanation will stop when one gets to a Necessary being"