Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
The Cosmological Argument - Coggle Diagram
The Cosmological Argument
Aquinas' 1st and 2nd ways
Aquinas created three versions of the cosmological argument
2nd way: causation
Everything has a cause
There can't be an infinite regress of causation - there can't be an infinite chain of cause and effect going back in time forever
There has to be a first cause which is uncaused - this is God
1st way: motion
Everything is in motion
There can't be an infinite regress of motion. It cannot be that there is just an infinite chain of movers going back in time forever. There has to have been a first mover - a start to the motion we observe
e.g. if you see dominoes falling, there must have been a first one that was pushed - there couldn't have just been dominoes falling forever
So, there must have been a first mover that was unmoved - that is God
Hume's critique of the cosmological argument: objection to the causal prinicple
The causal principle is the claim that everything has a cause
The cosmological argument assumes that everything has a cause - it assumes the universe must have a cause
But Hume claims it's possible the universe had no cause
Evaluation: criticism of Hume's objection to the causal principles
However - it seems scientifically justified to think everything has a cause
Everything we're ever seen has a cause
So, it's empirically more reasonable to think the universe also has a cause than to think it doesn't
The cosmological argument is therefore still convincing
Aquinas' 3rd way: contingency
A contingent being is one which depends on something else for its exisence
Everything we see is contingent
There can't have been infinite regress of contingent beings - one creating the next, goin back in time forever
So, there must have been a first contingent being, but that can't come from nothing, so there must have been a necessary being which created it
That necessary being is God. (a necessary being does not depend on anything else for its existence)
Hume and Russell's critique of the cosmological argument: fallacy of composition
The fallacy of composition states that just because something is true of the parts, doesn't mean it is true of the whole
e.g. just because every human has a mother, it doesn't mean the whole human race itself has a mother
Similarly - just because all the parts of the universe have a mover/cause/contingency - that doesn't mean the whole universe itself has a mover/cause/is-contingent
If the universe has no cause/mover/contingency, then there is no need for a God to explain its existence
Evaluation: criticism of the fallacy of composition
Leibniz points out that it's illogical for something to happen without a reason/cause
The universal must have a cause - nothing comes from nothing
Something only comes from something
So, the universe must have come from some cause - God
Hume's critique of the cosmological argument: the possibility of an infinite series
Maybe an infinite regress actually is possible
For something to be impossible it has to be logically self-contradictory
But there doesn't appear to be anything olligical or nonsensical about things going back in time forever
Evaluation: criticism of the possibility of an infinite series
Dominoes example - shows things must have a beginning
If you see dominoes falling - there must have been a first one which was pushed
Similarly, if you see things in the universe changing, being caused or being contingent - there must have been a first one which started the process off but was not caused, moved or contingent