The Cosmological Argument
Key ideas surronding the Cosmological Argument.
- Created by: Bethany
- Created on: 02-10-14 09:22
View mindmap
- The Cosmological Argument
- Aquinas
- Book = Summa Theologica
- Aquinas has 5 ways.
- 1) Prime Mover
- Every motion is caused by a previous motion, ultimately requiring an "unmoved mover". There can be no infinite regression.
- Use the example of playing snooker
- Every motion is caused by a previous motion, ultimately requiring an "unmoved mover". There can be no infinite regression.
- 3) Contingency
- Everything (in our experience) is caused by something else. The first cause must be outside the universe in order to create it and this must be God. (must be transcendent)
- Use the example of the train engine (Mackie) or a box of chocolates
- Everything (in our experience) is caused by something else. The first cause must be outside the universe in order to create it and this must be God. (must be transcendent)
- 4) Moral argument - not cosmological
- 2) First Cause
- Everything that exists was caused to exist. The universe exists so it must have a cause. There had to be something eternal that was not caused by anything. The "uncaused causer" must be God.
- Use the example of dominoes
- Everything that exists was caused to exist. The universe exists so it must have a cause. There had to be something eternal that was not caused by anything. The "uncaused causer" must be God.
- 5) Design Argument - not cosmological
- 1) Prime Mover
- Aquinas has 5 ways.
- Book = Summa Theologica
- Aristotle
- Originally came up with the 'prime mover argument'
- "Ex nihilo, nihil fit"- Nothing comes from nothing.
- Suggested something moves everything from actuality to potentiality
- Originally came up with the 'prime mover argument'
- Leibniz
- "Sufficient reason"
- Even if the universe has always existed, there is nothing within the universe to suggest why it exists.
- Everything has a sufficient reason therefore the universe as a whole must have a reason and the reason must be outside the universe.
- This sufficient reason must be God.
- Everything has a sufficient reason therefore the universe as a whole must have a reason and the reason must be outside the universe.
- Even if the universe has always existed, there is nothing within the universe to suggest why it exists.
- "Sufficient reason"
- 1948 Copleston and Russell BBC radio debate
- Copleston - Develops Aquinas' argument
- "If there is a contingent being, then there is a necessary being"
- "Only contingent beings can have a cause"
- "If you add up chocolates, you get chocolates after all and not sheep"
- "Only contingent beings can have a cause"
- "If there is a contingent being, then there is a necessary being"
- Russell - Rejects the argument
- It would look analytic to say "the existent round square exists" but it doesn't.
- "I see no reason whatsoever that the total has any cause whatsoever" "The universe is brute fact"
- "I do think the notion of the world having an explanation is a mistake. "I should just say the world is there and that's it"
- "I see no reason whatsoever that the total has any cause whatsoever" "The universe is brute fact"
- It would look analytic to say "the existent round square exists" but it doesn't.
- Copleston - Develops Aquinas' argument
- Initial rejections to the argument.
- Hume
- Hume has 5 criticisms of the cosmological argument.
- 3) Everything has a cause, except for God, so the argument implies a contradiction.
- 2) There is a fallacy of composition as just because everything in the universe has a cause doesn't mean everything outside of the universe has to have a cause.
- 4) Could just be an infinite regress and have no beginning.
- 1) The universe doesn't have to have a cause.
- 5) It may provide a suggestion of a first cause but it can't conclude that this first cause must be God.
- Hume has 5 criticisms of the cosmological argument.
- Kant
- Book = The Critique of Pure Reason
- Epistemic distance
- Kant doesn't like the idea that we can conclude in the necessary being of God, as we are not necessary so we can't comprehend what is.
- Epistemic distance
- Book = The Critique of Pure Reason
- Hume
- Mackie
- Moving train analogy
- If we see the carriages of a train moving, but not what was at the beginning, we would assume an engine was pulling them, and that this was the cause of them moving.
- Moving train analogy
- Scientists View
- Can work alongside the Big Bang theory
- However quantum physics suggests not everything has a cause
- Aquinas
Comments
Report
Report