The Cosmological Argument

COSMOLOGICAL-TYPE ARGUMENTSib philosophy of religion

A QUICK RECAP

• Cosmological arguments

• arguing from the existence of the cosmos

• suggesting that this fact requires an explanation (in the same way as other things do)

• not just Aquinas...

• Plato, Aristotle

NOW YOU’RE REAL PHILOSOPHERS...

• you con describe the argument with lots of technical terms...

• go...

inductive or

deductive?

a priori or a

posteriori

valid or invalid?

sound or

unsound?

CHAINS OF CAUSES

• you remember the basic idea...

• and you can do it for any event...

• and go back forever...

• or can you?

• this difficulty is the essence of the cosmological argument... photo-dict.faqs.org

PLATO

• remember he was really into changes in the universe

• everyone was... so was Aristotle...

• he thinks there are two sorts of causers or movers...

• primary movers and secondary movers

• the former require presence of a soul

ARISTOTLE

“The series must start with something,

since nothing can come from nothing.”*

*Metaphysics 999b in J,C&H POR

ARISTOTLE

• there must be an ultimate source of the universe

• to convince us, he asks us to consider the other option...

• to remove the ‘unmoved mover’ from the start of the chain....

• draw this idea in your notes...

THE UNMOVED MOVER

• must be there...

• another ‘moved’ mover just makes the chain longer...

• and we still have the same problem...

• something ‘unmoved’ is still required... “reductio ad absurdum”

taking a view and showing it to end up being absurd (& so false)[ ]

MEDIEVAL THEOLOGY

• we know about theology’s use of Ancient Greek philosophy...

• people like Anselm talk about cosmological arguments...

• either ‘CAUSAL’ or ‘CONTINGENCY”

• and famously in Aquinas...

satucket.com

marys-touch.com

AQUINAS’ FIVE WAYS

• let’s read...

• Summa Theologica

SO...

SO...

1. argument from motion

2. argument from causation

3. argument from contingency

4. argument from morals

5. a very teleological design type argument

SO...





5. a very teleological design type argument <= we already know about this

SO...






<= & we’ll look at this idea later

SO...







}

SO...







} cosmological type arguments

SO...







} cosmological type arguments(but in different ways)

SO...







SO...







}

SO...







} these are the ‘causation’ type arguments

SO...







} these are the ‘causation’ type arguments

- and this one’s slightly different in that it discusses ‘contingency’

1&2 - CAUSATION ARGUMENTS

• causal arguments

• to make his point he has to confront infinity...

• Aristotle’s reductio ad absurdum

• so there must be something ‘other’ to the chain of causes

1&2 - CAUSATION ARGUMENTS

• causal arguments

• to make his point he has to confront infinity...

• Aristotle’s reductio ad absurdum

• so there must be something ‘other’ to the chain of causes

FORMALLY:(i) things are moving/changing in the world

(ii) these things cannot move/change themselves

(iii) if everything was a secondary mover this would regress forever

(iv)if (iii) were true there would be no ‘first’ mover, and so none following...

(v) &C: there must be a prime mover (a different sort), Aquinas says we can call this God...

NOW, FIND THESE IN THE TEXT...

1. temporal causation

2. contradictions/(‘School-boy’ Obj.)

3. the ultimate source (necc. being)

4. the infinite regress

5. Aquinas’ notion of causation

6. Quantum Physics and Russell

7. Reductivism and composition

*as described in J,C&H 50-55

CRITICISMS (THERE’S LOTS)*

• temporal causation*

• the whole idea of causation is temporal

• causes before effects - obvious

• ‘God’ is a thing that did something a very long time ago

• not something involved in Universe now, a problem for Christian theologians amongst others

*J,C&H 50

1CRITICISMS (THERE’S LOTS)

lawyersandsettlements.com

• DEFENSE: sustaining causation*

• some people try to save by saying causes need not be instantaneous

• so causation becomes a hierarchy that is not limited to being temporal...

• ‘God’ becomes the ‘biggest’ or most overarching cause

*J,C&H 51

CRITICISMS (THERE’S LOTS)

thegoodlife-online.co.uk

• there is a simple contradiction in the premises

• if he insists everything ‘has a cause’, can he later insist there must be something without one...

• COUNTER: the reductio ad absurdum

• is meant to show just this; something totally other to the universe is required...

*J,C&H 51


• the critic might question why the Ultimate Source must be ‘God’

• the universe could be the ‘necessary’ thing

• OR why should we stop asking ‘what made that’ at God? (Hume)

• he says if there is another world where cause applies like this one, then there might well be another, and then another...

*J,C&H 51

3THE COMEBACK

• the absurdity of the infinite regress

• when Aquinas uses the word ‘infinite’ he seems to be meaning ‘very very long’

• of course the reductio works for a long chain (no matter how long)

• but for an infinite chain?

• that’s really infinite

*J,C&H 51


tnlc.com

• imagine a chain of hooks...

• one hanging from the next...

• no matter how long the chain is, we know the first must be joined to / held by something...

• but for a truly infinite chain... each is joined to another...

• similarly, no first cause is required if the chain is really infinite...

*J,C&H 52

J.L. MACKIE

• infinite regress fallacy

• standard philosophical tool

• previous philosophers have argued positions that lead to a recurring explanation to be lacking

*J,C&H 52

BUT...

resolutehomeschooler.wordpress.com

• Aquinas on causation

• we haven’t looked at Hume in Core theme yet but...

• he’s what’s known as a

• he thought everything that wasn’t purely rational was doubtable

• one of the things he thought of like this was causation

*J,C&H 51


electricscotland.com

• we certainly might get the cause of an event wrong

• BUT

• to imagine an event with no cause is totally impossible

*Davies 51

ANSCOME*

st-andrews.ac.uk

• Bertrand Russell

• Quantum Physics as ‘uncaused’ events taking place at a sub-atomic level...

• this deals an obvious and fatal blow to one of the most basic claims of Aquinas argument....

*J,C&H 54


• now here’s a harder one...

• Hume thinks that if one understands all the causes in a chain of causes, it makes little sense to seek an explanation for the chain as a whole...

• fallacy of composition

• [just because everything in the universe is known to have a cause, it does not necc. follow that the whole itself has a cause]

• he actually has problems with causation itself

*J,C&H 51


proprofs.com

AND KANT TOOthis position is further

supported the ‘impossibility of transcending our experience’

free-photos.biz

THE THIRD WAYAquinas’ Argument From Contingency

• what does it really mean?

• something to do with finitude...

• something to do with ‘dependence upon’...

• a sort of plan?

• these sorts of cosmological arguments argue that not everything can be contingent...

• if everything has a ‘sell-by’ date, there must be something without one...


CONTINGENCY

lawyersandsettlements.com

1. things in the world are contingent (don’t exist forever)

2. suppose that everything that was contingent ceased to be (nothing)

3. if 2 were true, there could be nothing (as ex nihil, nihil fit)

4. Therefore not everything can be contingent, there must be something necessary


THE ARGUMENT*

5. every necessary thing’s necessity must be caused by itself or by something else

6. imagine every necessary being is caused by something outside itself

7. if 6 is true there can be no ultimate cause of necessity

8. there must be a necessary causer that does not depend on another

CONFUSED?copy the diagram on page 57

it’s really helpful

THE BEING WITH UNCAUSED NECESSITY

• something that:

• does not depend on anything that is

• is outside the universe & eternal

• simply has to exist (it could not be any other way)

• Aquinas says GOD...

CRITICISMS (LESS THIS TIME)

1. Aquinas & infinity (again)

2. fallacious reasoning...?

3. necessary ‘beings’?

4. does Aquinas prove ‘his’ God?

5. the need for an explanation

• reductio ad absurdum

• we talked before about Aqu inas ’ i nfin i t y a s sounding very like ‘a long long time’

• ‘satisfactory explanation’ counter

*J,C&H 50

1CRITICISMS (LESS THIS TIME)

• fallacious reasoning

• this charge is brought by J L Mackie in The Miracle of Theism

• when Aquinas moves from all things are contingent and so ending

• to ‘there must be a time where they were all ‘ended’

• it’s possible (likely?) this never happens/ed


ladysiubhan.deviantart.com

• the idea of a being that is truly necessary

• necessary means something in philosophy

• means that a statement is true (or false) all the time - necessarily

• Kant and Hume said something is only necessary when denying it is a contradiction

• the things you just can’t get past... unarguable!


*J,C&H 59

free-photos.biz

electricscotland

• even if it works... which God does he prove?

• the criticism isn’t just that he doesn’t prove his God...

• but that he might not even prove a God that is worthy of worship...

• what do you think Aquinas would say?


ladysiubhan.deviantart.com

• is an explanation even required?

• this is Russell’s famous objection

• fallacy of composition, but more...

• similar to Dawkin’s projecting a need for explanation...


frmarkdwhite.wordpress.com

the universe is just there, and that’s all

LEIBNIZ’S ARGUMENT

for a ‘sufficient reason’

1646-1716helsinki.fi

THE BEING WITH UNCAUSED NECESSITYSuppose the book of the elements of geometry to have been eternal, one copy having been written down from an earlier one. It is evident that even though a reason can be given for the present book out of a past one, we should never come to a full reason. What is true of the books is also true of the states of the world. If you suppose the world eternal, you wil l suppose nothing but a succession of states and will not find in any of them a sufficient reason.

-GL Theodicy* *quoted in J,L&T 37

1646-1716helsinki.fi

RESEARCH HOMEWORKthe 1947 Copleston/Russell Radio Debate

robertopiecollection.com

FINAL QUESTION

can everything be explained?and why does it matter?

SCIENCE AND ORIGINS OF THE

UNIVERSEsurely we need to know the science?

a-face-a-day.blogspot.com

NEWTON’S FIRST LAW OF MOTION

• as described by Anthony Kenny*

• bodies can move uniformly (under own momentum) without being ‘acted upon’

• as well as at rest

• the question of what ‘motion’ really means for Aquinas...

An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays

in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an

unbalanced force.!

*The Five Ways quoted in J,L&T 40! http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/u2l1a.cfm

STEADY-STATE THEORY*

• there is no beginning or end to the universe

• it’s like a self perpetuating and sustaining machine...

• now largely rejected for the....

*JLT 40

“energy cannot be created”

Bondi, Gold & Hoyle

BIG BANG THEORY

• research what it is exactly - we don’t have time

• interestingly this appears to have ‘leveled the playing field’

• both sides of the debate often cite the BBT as evidence for their cause...

clicker.com

THE KALAM COSMOLOGICAL

ARGUMENTa more successful modern-day attempt?

knowitallnanna.wordpress.com

INFINITY - NOW THIS IS HARD...

• so we’re going to use a podcast...

• Philosophy Bites

• see ibphilosophy.org for questions sheet and outcomes...

SO....

• actual infinities

• potential infinities

• and lots of coloured books

• check in everitt - TNOG if unsure...

thegreenpartys.wordpress.com

WHOSE IDEA?

• Kalam (Arabic, lit. discuss/argue)*

• al-Kindi

• al-Ghazali (1058-1111)

• more recently William Lane Craig

• all reject the possibility of an actual infinity of causes

*JLT 42

CRAIG’S REJECTION

• is arguably pretty clever

• a universe without a beginning would be an actual infinite

• which leads to a problem

• using the library analogy

• in all of history there would be as many wars as there are events in total

QUESTION*

• this century began in 2000

• a year later it was 2001

• why would Craig think it unacceptable to describe the 21st century as an actual infinite

*based on an example in JLT 42

VIDEO: THE KALAM ARGUMENT

• let’s watch

FINAL CRITICISMSa more successful modern-day attempt?

we’re nearly there...

QUANTUM PHYSICS

• as counter to Newtonian Physics’ ‘bodies in motion’

• predictable, mechanical, uniform

• can you remember?

• Quinten Smith: the first cause could have be a ‘random’ subatomic event

*based on JLT 44

DAWKINS

• argues that if a God did ‘start’ the big bang, there would be some evidence of God’s involvement...

• but there is not...

• Anthropic arguments are ‘scientific hypotheses’ with no evidence

• his famous ‘fairies at the bottom of the garden’

*based on JLT 45

POLKINGHORNE

• science and theology as ‘intellectual cousins’

• asking ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions

• let’s read...

*based on JLT 45

nybooks.com

Date post:	22-Mar-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	james-burt
View:	221 times
Download:	0 times

The Cosmological Argument

Documents