Cosmological

• issues with the cosmological argument


  Is the first cause necessary?

  Yes - infinite regress could be possible, or the first cause could be scientific (quantum fluctuations)

  No - William Lane Craig, infinity is incoherent, there cant be infinite past events and because of physics we know time cant go back forever
• Issues with the Cosmological Argument


  'Everything has a cause' is not an analytic truth

  Yes - in quantum mechanics, sub-atomic particles may move without a cause

  No - Newtons 1st law means everything must have a cause, and Ockham's razor means it is easier to believe that everything has a cause
• William Lane Craig on infinity


  WLC thinks infinity is metaphysically absurd as it creates mathematical contradictions, and that infinity is a concept and not something that exists in reality

  Modern physics have found that the universe has an absolute beginning - the big bang

  Craig believes the first cause must

  • be uncaused and cant have infinite regress
  • be timeless because it created time
  • be immaterial because it created all material
  • must be personal to have free will to be the first uncaused cause
• Cosmological Argument

  • Theological argument trying to identify a chain of causation
  • First cause is god
  • Everything has a cause or is dependent on something
• Cosmological Argument: Ancient Greek foundations

  • 1st cosmological arguments come from plato and Aristotle
  • Plato
  • primary and secondary movers
  • primary - effect change
  • secondary - effected by the change
  • Aristotle
  • unmoved mover that set the world in motion
  • rejects infinite regress
  • must be a first cause
• The Kalam Argument

  • written by Al Ghazali, popularised by William Lane Craig

  1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
  2. the universe began to exist
  3. therefore the universe must have a cause
  4. therefore that cause is God
• William Lane Craig on Kalam Argument

  • infinity is merely a concept in human minds
  • universe cannot have existed forever
  • Big Bang - beginning of the universe
  • must be uncaused because there can’t be infinite regres, must be timeless, must be immaterial, must be personal because we need free will to be the first uncaused cause
  • must be God
• Aquinas 1st way from motion

  • there can’t be an infinite regress as there must be a first cause to set things in motion ie God
• Aquinas 1st way from motion - Syllogism

  1. Some things in the world are in motion
  2. whatever is in motion must have been set in motion by something else
  3. if this goes on forever/infinitely there is no first mover
  4. if there is no first mover then there is no subsequent movers and nothing is in motion
  5. but things are in motion
  6. there must be a first mover
  7. that first mover is God
• Aquinas 2nd way from causation

  1. Material Cause
  2. What it is made of
  3. Efficient Cause
  4. What brought it into existence
  5. Formal cause
  6. The way it is manifested in the world
  7. Final Cause
  8. The things purpose/end

  Universe cannot be the efficient cause of itself

  God is powerful enough to be the first cause
• Aquinas 2nd way from causation

  1. There is an order of efficient causes
  2. nothing can be the efficient cause of itself
  3. if this went on indefinitely there would be no 1st cause among efficient causes
  4. If (3) was true there would be no subsequent efficient causes but this is false
  5. There must be a 1st efficient causes by (source of all efficient causes) - must be God
• Problems with Aquinas 2nd way

  • P4 - could have subsequent causes with infinite regress
  • C1 - first efficient cause deduced, not necessarily God
  • P2 and C1 contradict
  • C1 - nothing can cause itself to exist but God must exist to cause itself
• Objections to Aquinas ways

  1. a first cause has been deduced but not necessarily god
  2. Aquinas’ arguments rest on a contradiction
  3. everything must have a cause and nothing can be the cause of itself
  4. something must exist that can cause itself - God
• Contingency


  Depends on something else for its existence
• Aquinas 3rd way from contingency

  • Contingent beings are impermanent, they have a shelf life
  • At some point everything will cease to exist
  • since this hasn’t happened, there must be a permanent being which all impermanent beings are contingent upon
  • must be God
• Aquinas 3rd way - Syllogism

  1. Everything that exists continently didn’t exist at some point
  2. If everything exists continently then at some point nothing existed
  3. If nothing existed then nothing could begin to exist
  4. But things did begin to exist, so there was never nothing In existence
  5. Therefore there must be something that exists necessarily, not continently
  6. Necessary being must be God
• Descartes Cosmological Argument

  • Must be as much reality or perfection in the cause as in the effect

  Cause of own existence?

  1. Myself
  2. no because I would’ve given myself all perfections
  3. Always existed
  4. no because I would be aware of this, something needs to sustain my own existence
  5. My parents
  6. cause of me being born but doesn’t sustain my existence (Descartes=dualist, separation of body and mind)
  7. also would cause infinite chain
  8. Must be God
  9. has the power to cause itself

  Descartes is trying to prove who created our minds
• Descartes Cosmological Argument Syllogism

  1. Cause of my own existence could be a) myself , (b) I have always existed, (c) my parents or (d) God
  2. Cannot be the cause of myself because I would’ve given myself all perfections
  3. Cannot have always existed because I would be aware of that
  4. parents are the cause of my physical body but not my thinking mind
  5. By elimination, only God could cause me to exist
• Leibniz on truth

  Truths of reasoning - necessary truths

  truths of fact - contingent truths
• Leibniz principle of sufficient reason

  • every truth has an explanation of why it is the case - even if we cannot know this explanation
• Leibniz principle -> Cosmological Argument

  • Sufficient reason for analytic truths is revealed by analysis
  • 3+3=6 needs no further explanation to show it is true
  • It is more difficult to provide sufficient reason for contingent truths, as more details can be added
  • Contingent thing is true because of a contingent thing which is ultimately true because of a necessary thing - infinite regress
  • Leibniz argues we need a necessary substance to escape the contingency cycle
  • And the only thing powerful for the entire universe to be contingent upon is God
• Objection to Leibniz

  • Leibniz states that the contingency of objects can only be explained in reference to a necessary being
  • Necessary being doesn’t have to be God
  • Could be mater or energy as It cannot be created or destroyed
  • Necessarily exists
• Possible response to matter/energy objection (Leibniz)

  • Matter/Energy isn’t perfect and therefore doesn’t exist by a necessity of its own nature
  • Cant be self-explanatory
• Hume on infinite regress

  • Hume argues that to avoid an infinite regress one should not look for explanations beyond the natural world
  • Supernatural causes invoke more explanation and complicate things further
  • Stopping at the natural world is the best way to avoid infinite regress
• Objection to cosmological arguments: Russells Brute Facts

  • ‘The universe is just there, and that is all’ - Bertrand Russell
  • Universe is a brute fact
  • brute facts exist without any further explanation or cause
  • violates principle of sufficient reason
  • fits with Ockhams Razor
  • Not logically impossible or self contradictory
• Possible response to Russells Brute Facts

  • Intellectually unsatisfactory and strikingly unphilosophical
  • it is justified to seek sufficient reason for the universe, a contingent thing
• Objection: Cosmological Arguments commit the Fallacy of composition (Hume and Russell)

  • Fallacy of composition: fallacy of thinking that because there is some property common to each part of a group, this property must apply to The group as a whole
  • Ie I have a mother, you have a mother but it would be wrong to say that humanity has a mother
  • Russell things it is mistaken to say ‘because everything within the universe has an explanation, the universe as a whole must have one too’
• Objection: Impossibility of a necessary being (Hume and Russell)

  • Concept of necessity only applies to statements, not things
  • A necessary truth is one that is self-contradictory to deny
  • Saying ‘god does not exist’ implies no contradiction (not necessary)
  • 2+2=5 IS a contradiction so 2+2=4 is necessary
  • If the existence of an alleged necessary being can be denied without contradiction then it was never necessary to begin with