Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
UNIT 2b ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD (Cosmological argument) -…
UNIT 2b ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD (Cosmological argument)
'THE FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT'- God is the cause and creator of the universe. The world has a starting point. It is directly opposed to the theory of infinite regression that the universe has always been here and never had a first cause or starting point.
APOSTERIORI- Argument from observation
INDUCTIVE- Aims to persuade us that the cause of the universe is God.
Science, through the big bang theory, argues that there is a starting point to the world- the chain of events cannot be infinite.
NECESSARY EXISTENCE
CONTINGENT EXISTENCE
-Temporary and finite existence, temporal, subject to change and motion, relies on something else for it's existence.
-Eternal, atemporal, uncaused, unmoved, does not rely on anything else for it's existence, cannot be thought of as not existing, God of Classical theism.
There must be an eternal necessary being that sets out motion and cause in the contingent world.
COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS
FROM CONTINGENCY
There must be something that has brought the universe into existence- a necessary being who is unchanging and not reliant on anything else for it's existence.
FROM CAUSATION
If everything has a cause as a law of nature then there must be an ultimate cause. However, this being is uncaused.
AQUINAS' FIVE WAYS
1st way- arguments from motion
2nd way- arguments from causation
3rd way- arguments from contingency
4th way- arguments from quality
5th way- arguments from design (TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT)
1, 2 3 are cosmological arguments
AQUINAS' COSMOLOGIAL ARGUMENT- THE THREE WAYS
FIRST WAY- ARGUMENTS FROM MOTION
-Everything in existence has the potential to change. Change is caused by something as all things have potentiality and can become actuality.
-Nothing can be moved off it's own accord (unmoved mover/ prime mover) does this- so this is God.
-Aquinas takes this idea from Aristotle but the unmoved mover is God.
SECOND WAY- ARGUMENTS FROM CAUSATION
-cause and effect are natural and observable in the world/ Causation occurs by the means of something else, and it is illogical to think otherwise. There must be a FIRST CAUSE.
God is an 'uncaused causer'- he was not caused by anything outside of his existence. However God is the cause of everything else.
THIRD WAY- ARGUMENTS FROM CONTINGENCY
Nothing in the world is permanent. Everything is contingent; we rely on something else for our existence. We have not always existed and will not always exist. Therefore there must be a NECESSARY BEING which all contingent things came from and rely on, that sustains us. This being is uncreated, uncaused and unmoved.
WEAKNESSES
ANTHONY KENNY- This idea contradicts Newton's first law of motion regarding inertia.
Everything having a cause could be the way humans percieve things.
How cna God be unmoved, uncaused, and everything else is contingent?
STRENGHTS
Most scientific thinking disagrees with infinite regress and the steady state theory.
Big Bang agrees that there is a first cause
KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
AL- GHAZALI- ISLAMIC SCHOLAR 1058- 1111
-Reworded and developed Aquinas' theory. Corrects the question that Awuinas' argument causes- God caused everything but is uncaused- this seems illogical. :
This argument was forgotten about and then brought back to public by WILLIAM LANE CRAIG 21ST century philospher. He presents Al- Ghazali's argument as a syllogism- in premises
SYLLOGISM
Is a philosophical argument in which there is a major premise and then a conclusion.
P1
Everything with a BEGINNING has a cause.
P2
The universe has a BEGINNING
P3
Therefore the universe must have a cause
P4
God is uncaused and has no cause as he has no beginning (he is eternal)
CONCLUSION
It is reasonable to believe that God exists through causation.
STRENGHTS
Definitely corrects the issues presented by Aquinas using a change of language.
Aligns with judeo-christian views where it is stated that God is eternal.
WEAKNESSES
What exactly is a beginning and how can this be defined? We weren't there at the 'beginning' so how can we really know?
No empirical evidence for God causing the universe, leap in logic in assuming that
However, the syllogism still assumes that God exists and that they are the cause of the universe. Until premise 3, the argument is feasible, however just as many scholars such as Hume, Dawkins and Darwin.
LEIBNIZ' ARGUMENT FROM THE PRINCIPLE OF SUFFICIENT REASON
German 17th century philosopher and theologian
"why is there something rather than nothing?"
There needs to be a reason for why the universe exists. Everything must have a sufficient reason for existing.
PRINCIPLE OF SUFFICIENT REASON
For something to exist there must be an acceptable reason for it existing.
P1
Everything that exists has an explanation for it's existence
P2
If the universe has an explanation for it's existence, then that explanation is God.
P3
The universe exists
CONCLUSION
The explanation for the universes existence is God
god exists as a necessary being as the explanation of the existence of contingent beings.
STRENGTHS
It is logical to look for something that caused the universe because infinite regression is hard to comprehend
WEAKNESSES
leap in logic, existentialism, russell "the universe is just there and that's it"
HUMES CRITICISMS
Multiple deities
PART TO A WHOLE- LEAP IN LOGIC
There are so many ways in which the universe could have been caused. It is foolish to assume that it is God who made the universe because we were not there- there is no empirical evidence. The theory is supposed to be an argument from observation but it relies on baseless claims and no one observed the cause of the universe. WE CANNOT MOVE FROM OBSERVING CAUSE AND EFFECT AND THE CONTINGENCY OF BEINGS AND ASSUME THAT THE UNIVERSE HAS A CAUSE WHICH IS GOD. RUSSEL SUPPORTS THIS.
We cannot move from "Every event has a cause" to "a whole series of events has a cause"
BERTRAND RUSSEL
Just because every human has a mother, does not mean the universe has a mother.
Epicurean thesis
Problem of eviil
The cause of the universe could be located within the universe itself, not assuming the existence of a supernatural force of the world which there is not empirical evidence for. Supported by BIG BANG THEORY and THE BIG CRUNCH which are scientific theories.
INFINITE REGRESSION is possible. Why not just accept that the universe has always been here and may not have a first cause? ALIGNS WITH STEADY STATE THEORY.
CAUSE AND EFFECT MAY BE A PERCEPTION. This may not be the way the world actually works- this may just be the way we percieve things.
NECESSARY BEING CRITICISM
Hume disagrees with the idea of a necessary being. He says that the definition of necessity is something that cannot be denied to exist- e.g water is completely necessary to human existence and it's own existence cannot be denied. However, Hume points out that many people can easily concieve of God not existing- we know intuitivively that water is vital for survival but God is not vital for survival.
COPPLESTON VS RUSSELL
Bertrant Russell- Athiest, disagrees with the cosmological argument "religion comes from the savage ages"
Cosmological argument is a 'fallacy of composition'- based on a logical fallacy that cannot be overcome. Just because you have a mother, does not mean the whole universe has a mother". Found in Hume's 'part to a whole' argument
Coppleton- theist, supporter of the cosmolgical argument
RADIO DEBATE BETWEEN COPPLESTON AND RUSSELL
Argument surrounding contingent and neccessary beings
Copleston argues that there must be a necessary being that all contingent beings come from. No object has a reason for it's own existence so there must be something external from the universe that is the reason for everything existing. There must be a starting point. Russell- it is beyond human capabiliity to think of this and the exisence of a necessary being makes no sense a posterori. To say that there is empriical evidence in the world around us that a necessary God exists is not possible. There is no such thing as a necessary being, there are only necessary statements which are analytic and self contradictory to deny. For example it cannot be denied that "all bachelors are unmarried"- this is a necessary statement.
Argument of the sufficient reason
Copleston- God is the sufficient reason for the universe. Russell- God cannot be the whole reason.E.g sufficient reason behind a lit match is being struck against the box but there are other processes that went into this as well. God is beyond out understanding altogether so we should not even attempt to see God as the sufficient reason for the universe existing.
Fallacy of composition
Copleston- The universe is untintelligable without God. It is foolish to rule out the question of where the universe came from.
Russell- It is a brute fact that the universe exists and that is all. Fallacy suggests that we assume that the universe has a mother because the human race has mothers.
The idea that everything has a cause.
Copleston argues that all scientists believe in the idea of everything having a first cause and there is evidence of this.
Russell argues that scientists do not assume they will find a cause but that it is very likely that they will find a cause. Looking for a cause for the world is a mistake and we can never know.