Cosmological Argument

?

The basis of Aquinas' argument in observation: 

  • Way 3 - Aquinas' third way is a posteriori and inductive - it is based on observation. He based his argument on his observation of the universe; sense experience can verify its existence and its properties
  • Way 3 is the observation that all things we see in the universe are contingent. This means that they are moved, changed and caused and they don't need to exist but they do.
  • From this observation, that everything is contingent, Aquinas concluded that something must exist necessarily. If everything we observe is contingent, then the cause of the universe would seem to lie outside it.

Aquinas' Third Way: The argument from contingency and necessity

P1: Everything can exist or not exist: that is everything in the natural world is contingent

P2: If everything is contingent, then at some time there was nothing, because there must have been a time when nothing had begun to exist.

P3: If there was once nothing, then nothing could have come from nothing.

C1: Therefore, something must exist necessarily, otherwise nothing would now exist, which is obviously fake. 

P4: Everything necessary must either be caused or uncaused.

P5: But the series of necessary beings cannot be infinite, or there would be no explanation of that series. 

C2: Therefore, there must be some uncaused being which exists of its own necessity. 

C3: And, by this, we understand God.

A caused necessary being is one that depends on something else to bring it into existence, but once created is everlasting

An uncaused necessary being is one that contains the reason for its own existence, in that its essence is existence so its very nature is to exist - it cannot not exist.

Criticisms from Hume and Russell:

1ST criticism: Russell argues that Way 3 commits the fallacy of composition - 

- fallacy is a failure in reasoning which makes an argument invalid. 

- fallacy of composition is the fallacy of inferring something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of part of the whole, or of every part of the whole. 

An example of this is: 

1) Hydrogen is not wet; oxygen is not wet

2) Therefore water is not wet.

This is clearly fallacious.

What Russell says about Aquinas' Way 2: 

that there is no reason why we should not argue that 

- every single event in the universe has a cause.

- the universe itself is uncaused. 

Can be applied to Way 3:

- Everything in the universe is contingent 

- the universe as a whole is contingent. 

Russell argues that actually:

- everything in the universe is contingent

-but the universe as a whole is necessary

- Russell is correct that arguments from the part to the whole can commit the fallacy of composition.

- However, this does not apply to all arguments from the parts to the whole e.g. 

'the wall is built of

Comments

No comments have yet been made