The Cosmological Argument
- Created by: lydiageexx
- Created on: 04-01-18 22:47
View mindmap
- The Cosmological Argument
- Aquinas
- Nothing comes from nothing, the universe exists, so something must have made it. That can only be God.
- 1. Motion
- This process goes back, but not forever ( no infinite regress), since thee would be no first mover.
- 1. Everything that is moving is moved by something else
- 3. Therefore there must be a first mover- God
- 3. Contingency
- 3.If this is true then at some point there was nothing
- 2.It is possible for these things not to be, then to come into existence, and then cease to exist
- 1. All things in nature change
- Criticisms of Aquinas negation of infinite regression
- One can have an infinite regression of numbers so why not in reality?
- Counter: what would then be questioned is why was there a sequence in the first place?
- Re-Counter: if God is the explanation for why there is anything rather than nothing, a person supporting infinite regression could ask who caused God.
- Counter: what would then be questioned is why was there a sequence in the first place?
- One can have an infinite regression of numbers so why not in reality?
- Hume's Criticisms of Aquinas
- 1. We assume everything has a cause but we have no empirical proof for this
- 2. So in this way, although Aquinas ideas are valid, it doesn't have to be true. In fact may be there was more than one first mover/
- 3. Why is it that the first mover or first cause has to be the christian God? it can be a team of Gods who are born and die, this understanding fits more with human experience of cause and effect
- 4. Fallacy of composition argues that why can't the universe go back to infinity
- 5. Aquinas argued thst God must be a necessary being on which the universe is dependent; howevere, Hume argues no statement about existence can be logically necessary. Any being calimed to exist may or may not exist. This is based on Hume's Fork
- 4. Fallacy of composition argues that why can't the universe go back to infinity
- 3. Why is it that the first mover or first cause has to be the christian God? it can be a team of Gods who are born and die, this understanding fits more with human experience of cause and effect
- 2. So in this way, although Aquinas ideas are valid, it doesn't have to be true. In fact may be there was more than one first mover/
- 1. We assume everything has a cause but we have no empirical proof for this
- Cosmology= study of the universe, proving God through looking at the order of the world
- A posteriori and inductive
- Quantum Physics
- Quantum physics seems to demonstrate that not everything has a cause. Quantum basically argues that at sub atomic level things can come into and out of existence without any cause whatsoever. At a sub atomic level, the universe appears to also be in random chaos and displays no sign of order or regularity
- Immanuel Kant
- The idea of cause and effect only applies in the realm of sense experiences - if we have not experienced something with our senses we can make no claim on it.
- Apodeitic Certainty
- To suggest God as the cause of the universe equally makes no sense as he also lies outside the realm of sense experience.
- Apodeitic Certainty
- To suggest God as the cause of the universe equally makes no sense as he also lies outside the realm of sense experience.
- The idea of cause and effect only applies in the realm of sense experiences - if we have not experienced something with our senses we can make no claim on it.
- Gottfried Leibniz
- Leibniz states that there must be some reason for the existence of everything. He uses the example of succession of editions of the same geometry book and suggests that it is impossibke to give a full explanation as to where the book came from by merelt looking at the previous edition. In effect Leibniz claims that unless you posit an author then you will never have a full explanation ('sufficient reason') for why the book existed in the first place. Then he compares this to the world ans states that, like the book, the world is nothing more than a succession of itself from earlier editions. Unless a creator is posited then, just like the books, a 'sufficient reason' can never be given for its existence
- Leibniz claimed that even if the universe has always been in existence, it would still require an explanation, or a 'sufficient reason' for its existence, since we need to know why there is something rather than noting. By going backwards in time forever we will never arrive at such a complete explanation. There can therefore be no such thing as infinite regression. There is nothing within the universe to show why it exists, so the reason for its existence must lie outside of it and by using our reason we can reach the conclusion there is a God.
- Leibniz states that there must be some reason for the existence of everything. He uses the example of succession of editions of the same geometry book and suggests that it is impossibke to give a full explanation as to where the book came from by merelt looking at the previous edition. In effect Leibniz claims that unless you posit an author then you will never have a full explanation ('sufficient reason') for why the book existed in the first place. Then he compares this to the world ans states that, like the book, the world is nothing more than a succession of itself from earlier editions. Unless a creator is posited then, just like the books, a 'sufficient reason' can never be given for its existence
- Strengths
- Science supports a beginning to the universe. The big bang theory suggests that the universe is not infinite.
- As we are constantly adding events to time, time can not be infinite as you can not add to infinity.
- The Big Bang Theory
- The most accepted scientific explanation of the universeis the Big Bang theory. Edwin Hubble lster discovered that the universe is emitting what is known as red shift. Red shift id the evidence needed to support the Big bang and it implies that galaxies are moving away from each other, then the universe is expanding. If you trace back the expanding universe you can postulate a space time singularity. From this one can postulate that there was and explosion of sorts from which the universe began. The Big Bang theory provided an explanation of the universe which may or may not include God at the beginning, but it suggests that the universe has not always existed and in turn shows that there was no infinite regression.
- Aquinas
Comments
No comments have yet been made