Hume's criticisms of the Cosmological Argument:
- All events have a cause- Argues that we see event A followed by event B. This does not prove that A causes B. An infinite series of causes is possible. Does the chain of causes have to end somewhere?
- There must be first cause: The fallacy of composition- If we know about causes within the universe, we do not also need to explain the universe as a whole
- Cause and effect is invalid and could be an illusion, Aquinas makes an iductive leap
- The material world itself may be necessary
- We cannot assume that every effect has a cause-"the whole" has a cause is "an arbitrary act of the mind" There is nothing in our experiance, or any logical argument that can be made, to suggest that there is an overarching cause which gives a reason for the effects we see in the universe
"Why may not be the material universe be the necessary existent being...We dare not affirm that we know all the qualities of matter"
Comments
No comments have yet been made