Cosmological argument - philosphers

?
View mindmap
  • Cosmological argument
    • Aquinas's Cosmological argument
      • The First Way - Unmoved Mover
        • Things in the world are in motion - from a potential state to an actual sate. They cannot be actual and potential at the same time.
        • Everything in motion must have been put in motion by something else.
        • Aquinas - "The chain of movers cannot go into infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and consequently no other mover".
        • Concludes - "It is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other, and this everyone understands to be God".
      • The Second Way - Un-caused cause
        • Nothing is n efficient cause of itself. (efficient cause is God).
        • It is not possible fir efficient causes to go back to infinity - if there is no efficient first cause, there will not be any following causes.
        • Aquinas Concludes - "it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause to which everyone gives the name of God".
      • The third way - Contingency (Not always there/true).
        • Things in the world have a contingent existence. If everything at one time did not exist, there would be nothing in existence.
        • Aquinas - "There must exist something the existence of which is necessary"  - God is Not contingent, he is necessary. - Infinite regression of necessary things is impossible.
        • Aquinas " There exists some being having its own necessity, this all men speak of as God"
    • HUME
      • Agrees with Infinite regression - Aquinas Does not.
        • Going backwards forever - accepted due to the fact that we have a concept of infinity.
          • - BUT - There must be a starting point.
      • Criticisms:
        • We see event A followed by event B - this does not prove that A causes B.
        • The world is Finite - we can assume that a finite cause is likely to cause a finite effect. - God could be contingent.
        • If we know about causes within the universe, we do not also need to explain the universe as a whole.
        • It is possible to say that god does not exist, it is not like saying that triangles have four sides.
        • The universe itself may be necessary.
        • If the universe were eternal, it would be absurd to talk of it having a cause.
      • Criticizes Aquinas:
        • Between cause and effect there is a moment which we cannot explain - not as simple as we think.
        • 'cause and effect' may be a statistical correlation. 'x,y'  - 'something happens, something happens' - no mention of cause - do we need a cause.
        • It is a very different cause to anything we know - we know other causes but don't know a divine cause - outside of our experience.
        • We look at things and can model and understand how the cause happened - but we cannot explain or model how God caused the universe.
          • BUT - Some things we do not know yet and may be able to work out in the future.
    • Leibniz
      • God provides the sufficient reason. It is a final answer without need of further reason.
      • We need a full explanation of everything.
      • "Sufficient reason is that in virtue of which we hold that no fact could ever be true of or existent, nor statement correct, unless there were a sufficient reason why it was thus and not otherwise"
    • Copleston
      • Uses ideas from Aquinas's 3rd way.
      • Universe is contingent. No object is the reason of its own existence - universe was created by something outside of it - God.
      • A complete explanation is needed - in its entirety - nothing can be added.
      • Doesn't believe in infinite regression - if there was then we would not be contingent beings.
    • Russel
      • Agnostic
      • The idea of cause does not need to be applied to the whole universe.
      • Says that the universe is just there - it is not explainable  - may not even be an explanation - even if there is it is out of human grasp.
      • We are contingent beings.
      • Just because individual beings have a mother, doesn't mean that the whole universe has a mother.
      • "I should say that the universe is just there and that is all" - brute fact.
    • J L Mackie
      • "There is a permanent stock of matter whose essence did not involve existence from anything else"
      • Non-contingent so no cause - against cosmological argument.

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Religious Studies resources:

See all Religious Studies resources »See all Philosophy resources »