Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
A3 summary of Aquinas’ cosmological argument, cosmological argument aim to…
A3 summary of Aquinas’ cosmological argument
About Aquinas
1225-1274
apart of the catholic church
Italian
Key definitions
Temporal = relating to time
Ex nihilo, nihil fit = from nothing, nothing comes
Atemporal = Not relating to time
Causal principle = Everything has a cause / everything comes from something
Act = A ball may have the actual feature of being solid / how something is in this moment
Potency = A ball also has certain potentialities, like gooeyness, if it is melted in a fire / the potential an object has to change
Causal series
Accidentally ordered causal series = each member of the series can exist independently. such as if your parents stopped exiting you would continue to
Essentially ordered causal series=
each member must exist simultaneously (at the same time). Such as if you play a guitar the sound stops when your fingers stop moving.
Arguments
deductive arguments= 1) If premises are true then conclusion is gauranteed. 2) all premises must be true
a posteriori arguments = based on knowledge gained through experience gained via our 5 senses
Aquinas' 3 Ways
First way
1] some things are in motion (changing)
2] To move something needs to be moved by something else
3] This chain o movers cannot infinitely regress (go back forever)
4] There has to be a first mover - everyone understands this to be God
Hume's objection to the causal principle: We can conceive of things comming into existance without causation (because its not a logical contradiction) so it is a possibility
Russell's objection to Aquinas' first way: Aquinas commits the fallacy of composition. Just because we observe that things in the universe are moved by another doesn't mean the universe needed to have a cause of motion
Counter: Sometimes what is true of the parts is true of the whole because the parts have the same properties of the whole due to the nature of the parts. eg. many red bricks make a red wall. So people are entitled to argue that because things in the universe have a cause, the universe has a cause
My judgement: This is a strong arguement, the nature of things in the universe is that they're ever changing and contingent. So it is logical to assume the thing that these contingent things makes up is also contingent
Counter 2: CA's don't need to reason part - whole. We dont typically reason in this fashion. You don't look at every indicual page to deduce a book has a cause for it's existace so why do ypu need to do this for the universe?
My judgement: The reason we need to reason part - whole is because we connot infer how the unierse was made because it's so beyond our comprehension. We know a book is manmade so we can infer it has cause - we cannot do this for the universe.
Second way
1] world contains instances of efficient causation (we know that things cause other things through just experiencing the world)
2] Things can't cause their own existence
3] there cannot be infinite regress of causation
4] There must be a first cause - everyone knows to be God
Counter argument: Just because it's conceivable doesn't mean its a possibility in relity. I can conceive of water being H30. But its never going to be a possiblity in reality
My judgment: This is a strong counter: something can be a logically possibility without being probable. It's conceivable but in our universe/reality it's not posssible.
Third way
1] In nature it is possible to exist or to not exist (contingent beings)
2] In infinite time there would be a time were all contingent beings would have ceased to exist together
3] If there was nothing, nothing would have began
4] Therefore something must necessarily exist (its a contradiction to not exist)
5] A chain of necessary beings cannot infinitely regress
6] So there must be a being with "it's own necessity" and everyone understands this to be God
Since each contingent thing exist contingently he is assuming that at one point all contingent beings would've ceased to exist together but what is true of part of the universe is not true of the whole
Hume's and Russell's criticisms
Criticism of contingency arguments; The impossibility of a necessary being (Hume and Russel).
1] If a necessary being existed, to deny its existance would be a contradiction
2] It is not a contradiction to deny the existance of God
3] Therefore, a necessary being does'nt exist
Counter argument: Denying the existance of God does involve a contradiction (Descartes)
Descartes disagrees that 'it is not a contradiction to deny a necessary being' because you canot say that a necesary being (a being that must exist) does not exist
Mountain and valley analogy: You cannot sepertae the idea of God from existance, like how you cannot seperate the idea of a mountain without a valley. You cannot have one without the other
My judgment: The idea of existance is integral to the concept of God however, denying God exists isn't the same as denying a square has four sides. A square not having 4 sides in incomprhensible - it would be viewed as absurd by everyone, the burden of proof is on the person who denies a square has 4 sides. But denying the existace of God is not universally seen as absurd, and typically the burden of proof is on the person who wants to prove God's existence
cosmological argument aim to be deductive and allegedly meet both conditions
