Aquinas' cosmological argument

Aquinas' cosmological argument:

13th century, NO big bang! but can use Big bang to help this.

- A posteriori and inductive argument

-  Nothing can actualise its own potential - You can't just get hot wood! You need an external agent (fire) to make wood hot.

- From nothing comes nothing ( Ex nihilo nihil fit)

- God is the unmoved mover.

- God is the uncaused cause - (cause and effect is evident all around us).

- We are all contingent beings but contingent beings can't bring a universe into existence. They need an external agent (a necessary being) existing outside of the chain - GOD.

SCIENCE VS GOD

Science:

- Dawkins said that just because science hasn't discovered it yet doesn't mean it won't in the futureand ugresus to 'get better science' and stop turning to the God of the Gaps argument. he thinks that science particularly the work of Darwin and evolution, should inspire us to find the answer in science.

- The cosmological argument depends on a cause and effect universe being an accepted truth and science undermines this.

- Russell developed Hume's objection of applying a principle that belonged to part of a whole equally to the whole itself. Russell called this 'the fallacy of composition' where he said that just because we can observe cause and effect in the universe doesn't mean that it applies to a whole.

- Our understanding of cause and effect is not necessarily relevant.

- Hume saw the first cause argument as nonsensical and says that you were not there when universes were being created so you can't talk about it meaningfully.

- Kant argued that every event must have a first cause, only applied to the world of sense experience. It cannot apply to something that we have not experienced. Basically, we have to have experienced something in…