COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT [AQUINAS} - Coggle Diagram
COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT [AQUINAS}
FIRST WAY: MOTION
Everything that's in motion or changing, has been put in that state by something else
change of movement cannot go back infinitely, so infinite regress is impossible
If A is put in motion by B, then something else (C) must have put B in motion, and so on
There must have been a first mover which itself is unmoved
This prime mover is God- "First mover...everyone understands ro be God"
" chain of movers cannot go back to infinity because there would be no first mover' - Aquinas, Summa Theologica
SECOND WAY: CAUSATION
everything in the universe is subject to cause and effect (C is caused by B, and B is caused by A, and so on)
If this chain of causation was infinite, there would be no first cause
If there was no first cause there would be no subsequent cause or effects
But there are cases and effects in the world, therefore there must have been a first cause
The first cause is God- he started off a chain of causes from which all events have ensued
nothing can be the cause of itself as it would mean it would have to exist before it existed
THIRD WAY: CONTINGENY & NECESSITY
P1: everything in the natural world is contingent(relies on something else for its existence)
P2: if everything is contingent, there must have been a time where nothing existed
P3: but nothing can come from nothing
C1: therefore something must exist necessarily otherwise nothing would now exist
C2: Therefore there must be some uncaused being which exists of its own necessity
C3: this we understand to be God
THE UNIVERSE ITSELF MAY BE A NECESSARILY-EXISTENT BEING:
if something has to be necessary, why that be the matter that makes up the universe- why does it have to be an unobservable God
This conforms with the principle of Occams Razor-nits simpler to make do with one entity (matter) than 2 entities (mind & matter)
HOWEVER: for Aquinas, matter would still be an caused necessary being and would still need God as an uncaused necessary being to cause its existence
WAY 3 COMMITS FALLACY OF COMPOSITION:
F.O.C= inferring something is true of the whole from that fact its true of part of the whole
Just because every event in a series has a cause, doesnt mean the series itself has a cause
"everyman who exists has a mother...obviously human race hasn't a mother"
HOWEVER this isnt necessarily the case- if things that make up the universe cease to exist, then the universe (which is no more or less a sum of its parts) can cease to exist
SUGGESTS UNIVERSE= A BRUTE FACT:
Brute fact= fact that has no explanation
The universe exists as un unexplainable brute fact
the simplest explanation of why the universe exists is that there is no explanation
"the universe is just there and that's all"
HOWEVER science works on the assumption that there are no brute facts, others science wouldn't work
if things in the universe arent brute facts then why should the universe as a whole be a brute fact
HUME & RUSSELL:
BOTH REJECT CLAIM THAT ANY BEING CAN BE NECESSARY:
Hume says that all statements about existence are synthetic(based on sense experience) so they cant be analytic( cannot be logically true)
HOWEWER: 3rd way doesnt claim that 'God exists' is logically necessary, but claims his existence is metaphysically necessary
Metaphysical necessity= derives from nature/essence of things
claims about metaphysical necessity are claims about the way things really are
therefore Humes argument fails
WEAKNESSES & COUNTER ARGUMENTS
WHY SHOULD THERE BE JUST 1 NECESSARY BEING? WHY NOT GROUP?
Aquinas admits there could be any number caused necessary beings but unless we admit the existence of an uncaused necessary being, there is no explanation for caused ones.
WHY NOT FROUP OF UNCAUSWED NECESSARY BEINGS?
Occamz Razor- one uncaused necessary being makes the fewest assumptions and doesnt multiply entities unnecessarily
WHY CANT THERE BE INFINITE REGRESS OF CONTINGENT BEINGS WITHOUT NEED FOR 1ST NECESSARY BEING?
this would still not explain why there is something rather than nothing
we have no evidence that an infinite past sequence from maths exists in real world
SOME CURRENT COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS SUGGEST THE UNIVERSE EXISTS ETERNALLY & UNCAUSES
any argument still leaves unaswered questions about why the universe bothers to exist at all
Principle of sufficient reason: doctrine that everything must have a reason or cause- every contingent fact about the universe must have an explanation