The cosmological argument (brief)

  • Created by: Acacia
  • Created on: 03-05-20 19:48
View mindmap
  • Cosmological arguments
    • The Kalam
      • Everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist and the cause of the universe's existence must be distinct from the universe itself. There can't be an infinite regress so the universe has a cause. (God)
    • Aquinas' 1st way
      • The world is changing, things cannot change themselves, if we track the cause of a change  this too would have a cause. To stop this happening infinitely there must be an unchanged first cause. Being God.
    • Aquinas' 2nd way
      • In the world there are causes & effects, nothing can causally depend on itself, if you remove a cause you remove it's effect, There cannot be an infinite regress as there would be no first cause. Therefore there must be a 1st cause (god)
    • Aquinas' 3rd way
      • Contingent beings exist in the universe, if everything were contingent there would be a time where nothing existed, if this were true nothing would exist now as nothing can come from nothing, since contingent things do exist something must exist necessarily(god)
    • Descartes' argument based on continuing existence
      • If I caused my own existence I would give myself all perfections but I don't have all perfections therefore am not the cause of my own existence. My existing at one time does not entail my existing later so some cause is needed to keep me in existence. I do not have the power to cause my own existence and my cause must have as much reality as me, there cannot be an infinite regress, therefore some cause must be the cause of itself. (god)
    • Leibniz's argument from sufficient reason
      • There are truths of reasoning(necessary) & truths of fact(contingent), Truths of fact can only be explained by other contingent facts. Sufficient reason for contingent facts can't come from this sequence therefore the sufficient reason for contingent facts must be necessary(God)
    • Objections to cosmological arguments
      • The possibility of an infinite series
        • If the universe is infinite it has no beginning.
          • Multiverse theory claims that there are an infinite number of universes which are all constantly expanding and break off in to other universes
            • This theory requires just as much belief as believing in God.
        • Highlights that an infinite sequence of temporal phenomena is impossible
      • Hume's objection to the causal principle
        • Hume argues that the statement 'everything has a cause' isn't analytic and we can deny it without any  contradiction.
          • We have no experience of things like the beginning of the universe so we can't apply principles developed within the universe to the universe as a whole
          • Belief that everything that exists has a sustaining cause isn't a necessary condition as there may be no sustaining causes just complex temporal ones
      • (Russel) Fallacy of composition
        • Assumptionfrom part to whole.
          • Just because each thing exists contingently it doesn't follow that the whole universe does
            • However inferring from parts to whole doesn't always commit this fallacy. If every part of the universe ceased to exist so would the universe, showing the universe is contingent
              • This is a weak response as it can be overcome by removing deductive cosmological arguments - to claim it is the best inference instead. God's existence = better explanation that none at all
      • The impossibility of a necessary being
        • Nothing that is distinctly conceivable implies a contradiction, what we conceive as existent we can also conceive as non-existent, therefore there is no being who's non existence implies a contradiction
          • This critique attacks the conclusion.Making the whole argument fundamentally flawed


No comments have yet been made

Similar Philosophy resources:

See all Philosophy resources »See all Metaphysics of God resources »