Cosmological Argument

• Uses the fact that the Universe exists to argue the existence of God
• A posteriori argument, uses the evidence of the senses
• Inductive reasoning, conclusion is considered highly probable given the evidence
• Comes from the Greek 'cosmos' meaning world/universe

1st, 2nd and 3rd of his five ways to prove God are versions of the Cosmological Argument

Version 1, argument from motion:

• Everything that moves is moved by something else
• There cannot be an infinite regression of moves as this would make the Universe ultimately unintelligible 
• Therefore, there must be some unmoved move which is the source of all motion, a prime mover (God)

Version 2, argument from causation:

• Everything that happens is caused by something else
• There cannot be an infinite regression ofcauses
• Therefore, there must be some uncaused cause which is the source of all events, a first cause (God)

Version 3, argument from contingency:

• Everything in the world is contingent and therefore capable of existing or not existing
• There must have been a time when all periods of non-existence coincided
• Therefore nothing would exist now as there would be nothing to bring it into existence
• Therefore there must be some that is not contingent, a necessary being (God)

Islamic version of the Cosmological argument

• Whatever comes into being must have a cause
• If something doesn't contain the reason for it's own existence then it must have been caused by something else
• Only when you arrive at a self-explanatory, uncaused being can you say you have arrived at the end of the chain of causes and events

• Everything that comes into existence has a cause
• The Universe is finite and therefore came into existence, this means it has a cause
• The Univerese is finite because an actual infinite cannot exist because you cannot add to an actual infinite
• Time and space came with the Universe so also are finite
• The cause of the Universe is outside of time and space, this we can call God

Analogy of the library:

• Imagine an infinite library of red and green books
• There would have to be an infinite number of green books AND an infinite number of red books
• This is not possible as you cannot add to an infinite as it would not have already been an infinite if you could add more
• If the Universe was infinite then you would not be able to add to it as it is already infinite meaning we wouldn't be here

Sufficient reason:

• Even if the Universe was infinite there would still be no reason for it's existence, why there is something rather than nothing
• There is nothing within the Universe to show why it exists, it is not self-explanatory
• Therefore there must be something outside the Universe that shows why it exists

Analogy of the geometry book:

• Suppose the book of geometry to have been eternal
• Each copy having been copied down from the previous
• Even though the reason for the present book can be given as the last one, we should neve come to a full reason
• The Universe is the same in that it is no more than a succession of states, none of which contain sufficient reason

• Adding up things which do not contain the reason for their own existence will never make the reason for their existence
• Rejects infinite regress as infinite contingent beings will only ever be infinite contingent beings, never an incontingent being
• The Universe is made up entirely of such contingent beings
• Therefore we must look beyond the Universe for the reason of our existence, to God

Sheep and chocolates:

• If you add up chocolates you simple get chocolates, not a sheep
• If you add up chocolates to infinity you will still only get chocolates and nothing else
• So if you add up contingent beings you will only get contingent beings, not a necessary being

David Hume:

• If an explanation for the parts is given then it is unneccessary, even unreasonable, to ask for an explanation of the whole
  • However the constituent parts of a computer do not explain the whole computer
  • Robert Gardner-Sharpe, it would be more unreasonable to ask for an explanation for 20 slices of cake than it would be to ask for one for the whole cake
• Why must the necessary being be the God of Classical Theism?
  • The material world could be the necessary being

Bertrand Russell:

• Why must we look for an explanation at all?
  • "I should say that is just is'
  • However if we don't ask questions then we will never discover new things

Immanuel Kant:

• You cannot use sensory evidence of motion, causation and contingency to explain what is so far beyond our sensory experiance
  • This argument undermines the conclusion of any a posteriori argument

Anthony Kenny:

• People are able to move themselves using their brain
• Evolution states that organisms can changes themselves to suit their environment
  • However you could say that God created these things
  • Even if they aren't caused/moved directly by first cause/prime mover the things causing/moving them are