Cosmological argument

?
  • Created by: Larrynz
  • Created on: 24-04-22 04:28
What is the argument based on?
All things in the universe are contingent, they don’t contain within themselves the reason for their existence, so need something necessary to explain them.
1 of 20
Explain Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason
1. Nothing takes place without sufficient reason. 2. The world is contingent, to have sufficient reason we must get back to something non contingent. 3. This non contingent sufficient reason must exist outside of the world and is god.
2 of 20
Describe the background to the kalam cosmological argument
Developed by 11th century Islamic scholastic al ghazali and updated by 20th century Christian philosopher William lane Craig. It argues from the existence of the universe to the existence of god.
3 of 20
What are the four premises of the kalam argument?
Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Ergo, the universe must have a cause and this cause is god.
4 of 20
Explain Craig’s use of the third law of thermodynamics
In an isolated system, the amount of entropy increases with time. The universe of the past had lower entropy then the universe of today. An eternal universe could not exist in the present state of disequilibrium, ergo, the universe began to exist.
5 of 20
What is Aristotle’s cosmological argument?
Either the universe had an ultimate cause, or no ultimate cause. If it didn’t have one, the chain of cause and effect had no beginning. If the chain of cause and effect had no beginning, there would be no chain! Ergo, there is an ultimate cause.
6 of 20
What is the main problem with the kalam argument?
It supposes a cause which comes into existence with no cause- how did the universe begin, what is its cause? Modern astrophysics suggests the Big Bang.
7 of 20
What are aquinas’ cosmological arguments?
Motion, cause and contingency. Inductive arguments which use reductio ad absurdum to disprove the idea of an infinite regress.
8 of 20
What are the four premises of from motion?
There are things in a state of motion, nothing can change by itself- they are secondary movers. If all things are SM there would be an infinite regress of SM. If this is true, there’d be no PM, so no SMs. There are SM so there must be an unmoved PM.
9 of 20
What are the four premises of from cause?
Every event has a cause, nothing can be its own cause. If the order of causes goes back to infinity, there’d be no first cause. No first cause, means no causes at all, this is false. There must be a first cause- god.
10 of 20
What are the first three premises of from contingency?
In nature, everything can exist or not exist. Given infinite time, everything will eventually not exist. If there was once nothing, nothing could come from it.
11 of 20
What are the last three premises of from contingency?
As something can’t come from nothing, something must exist necessarily. Everything necessary must be caused or uncaused, you can’t have an infinite series of necessary causes, so there must be a being that has its own necessity- god.
12 of 20
Give four strengths of aquinas’ argument
1. Doesn’t seek to prove a uniquely Christian god. 2. Inductive and based on probability, experiences raise the probability. The idea universe has a cause is supported by Big Bang. If infinite regress is possible, we’d still suppose an explanation.
13 of 20
Give three weaknesses of aquinas’ argument
Inductive arguments are only probable. Why does infinite regress have to be impossible? If we think of what god was doing before he chose to create the universe, we’re left with an infinite regress of him actively choosing not to create the universe.
14 of 20
Give three more criticisms of the argument
1st and 2nd ways are contradictions, everything has a cause but go is uncaused? Could the universe not be the uncaused causer? Russell- the universe is just a brute fact and requires no explanation.
15 of 20
Give three points hume made against the argument
We have no experience of the universe being made, so can’t speak of it. Even if the universe did begin, nothing proves god caused it. Sufficient reason is flawed and those who look for it in the universe are looking for something that doesn’t exist.
16 of 20
What does Hume point out is the problem with causation?
We think of a first cause that if we go back far enough, we will encounter. This suggests it no longer exists- something no theist would accept. It could be argued that causation sustains as well as causes an event.
17 of 20
What is Hume’s fallacy of composition?
Just because something is true of the part, it must be true about the whole. Just because things in the universe are caused does not mean the whole universe was caused.
18 of 20
What is the problem with the fallacy of composition?
It is not formal, if we take square tiles on a floor, it would be a fallacy to assume the whole floor is square, but if we replace shape with color, the fallacy stands.
19 of 20
How does Kant oppose the argument?
Our knowledge of the world is limited to space and time, we can’t speculate on what exists outside of it. Necessary being is a fallacy as the premise ‘go exists’ is not a self evident proposition.
20 of 20

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Explain Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason

Back

1. Nothing takes place without sufficient reason. 2. The world is contingent, to have sufficient reason we must get back to something non contingent. 3. This non contingent sufficient reason must exist outside of the world and is god.

Card 3

Front

Describe the background to the kalam cosmological argument

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

What are the four premises of the kalam argument?

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

Explain Craig’s use of the third law of thermodynamics

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Religious Studies resources:

See all Religious Studies resources »See all Philosophy resources »