Cosmological

• What do cosmological arguments start from?

  Everything depends on something else for existence
• How do cosmological arguments relate to the universe?

  The universe depends on something else to exist
• What is the Kalam argument's first premise?

  Whatever begins to exist has a cause
• What does the Kalam argument conclude about the universe?

  The universe has a cause
• What are the three versions of the cosmological argument by Aquinas that A level philosophy requires you to know?

  • Argument from motion
  • Argument from causation
  • Contingency argument
• What is the argument from motion according to Aquinas?

  Things in motion must be put in motion by another
• Why can't there be an infinite chain of movers according to Aquinas?

  There would be no first mover
• What does Aquinas conclude about the first mover?

  The first mover is understood to be God
• What does the argument from causation state?

  Everything in the universe is subject to cause and effect
• What is the conclusion of the argument from causation?

  There must have been a first cause
• What is the distinction Aquinas makes in the argument from contingency?

  Between necessary and contingent existence
• What does Aquinas argue about contingent existence?

  Everything that exists contingently did not exist at some point
• What must exist if nothing existed at some point according to Aquinas?

  There must be something that exists necessarily
• What does Descartes argue about his existence?

  I am a thinking thing with the idea of God
• Why can't Descartes be the cause of his own existence?

  He would have given himself all perfections
• What does Descartes conclude about the cause of his existence?

  God is the ultimate cause of my existence
• What is Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason?

  Every truth has an explanation for why it is the case
• What are the two types of truth defined by Leibniz?

  Truths of reasoning and truths of fact
• What does Leibniz say about contingent truths?

  They require sufficient reason outside their sequence
• What is the problem with assuming a first cause?

  It assumes there can't be an infinite chain of causes
• What does Hume's fork question about causation?

  Whether everything has a cause can be known
• What does Hume say about our experience of causation?

  We see events but not actual causation
• What is Russell's fallacy of composition?

  Invalid inference about properties of parts
• How does Russell apply the fallacy of composition to cosmological arguments?

  Not all parts having a cause means the universe doesn't
• What is a possible response to Russell's objection?

  Everything within the universe exists contingently
• What do Aquinas' arguments show about the first cause?

  They show there is a first cause, not that it's God
• How does Descartes' argument differ regarding the first cause?

  He reasons the first cause is an omnipotent God
• What are the main problems with cosmological arguments?

  • Is a first cause necessary?
  • Hume’s objections to causation
  • Russell's fallacy of composition
  • Is the first cause God?
• Kalam argument developed form

  • P1. The universe is composed of temporal phenomena - things that occur and exist in time - that are preceded by other temporal phenomena that are ordered in time.
  • P2. An infinite regress of temporal phenomena is impossible.
  • C1. Therefore, the universe must have a beginning.
  • P3. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
  • C2. Therefore, there is a cause of the existence of the universe.
• kalam argument simple form

  1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
  2. The universe began to exist
  3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
• Aquinas (1) motion

  1.There are some things in motion (or state of change from potentiality to actuality)

  2. Nothing can move/ change itself - everything must be moved by a "mover"

  3. If the world didn't have a mover but there was an infinite regress, then nothing in the world would move

  4. Things do move, therefore there must be a first "unmoved mover" (God)
• Aquinas (2) causation

  1.Every event has a cause

  2. Nothing can be the cause of itself

  3. If there were an infinite regress of causes, there would be no first cause

  4. If there were no first cause, there would be no effects

  5. Therefore, there must be a first cause (God)
• Aquinas (3) contingency

  1.Things in the universe exist contingently.

  2. If it is possible for something not to exist, then at some time, it does not exist.

  3. If everything exists contingently, then at some time, there was nothing in existence.

  4. If at some time, there was nothing in existence, then nothing would exist now.

  5. It is obviously untrue that nothing exists now (reductio ad absurdum)

  6. Therefore, there must be something that does not exist contingently, but necessarily.

  7. This necessary being is God.
• Descartes argument (continued existence)

  • P1 The cause of my existence cannot be myself, I would have made myself perfect
  • P2 My continued existence must rely on something else
  • P3 cannot have an infinite regress of causes whatever caused me must be the cause of its own existence
  • P4 l am a thinking thing with the idea of God, must be as much reality in the cause as in the effect, cause must be a thinking thing with the idea of God
  • C1: a thinking thing with the idea of God, with necessary existence, the cause of my sustained existence. God.
  • C2: Therefore, God exists.

   
• leibniz argument 


  P1 - no fact can ever be true or existent unless there is sufficient reason why things are as they are and not otherwise

  P2 - contingent facts exist

  P3 - contingent facts can only be explained partially in terms of other contingent facts

  C1 - the whole series of contingent facts cant be sufficiently explained by any contingent fact within that series

  C2 - the sufficient reason for all contingent facts and for the series of facts must lie outside the series of contingent facts

  C3 - the ultimate reason for facts/things must be in a necessary substance, which we call god
• Hume objection to the causal principle -

  P1 - if we see two types of events constantly connected then our mind is led by the observation of one to expect the other

  P2 - the sense of expectation provides our idea of a necessary connection between X and Y

  C - this idea of a necessary connection gives us our belief that X causes

  ^ if we only experience the second event without the first then we cant know the cause

  ^ problem of induction cant assume whats happened in the past will happen in the future
• Humes objection to the causal principle

  P1 - if 'every event' can be known a priori, then denying it would lead to a contradiction

  P2 - 'Not every event has a cause is not contradictory, as can conceive of an event with no cause

  C - therefore, 'every event has a cause' cant be known a priori
• Russel - fallacy of composition

  • moves from every event has a cause to the whole series of events has a cause
  • Hume argues if weve explained cause of each event, then unreasonable to need to explain what caused the series
  • cause and effect apply to events in the universe, not the whole series
  • Aquinas mistaken to assume there must be a first cause that started the chain of cause and effect
• Impossibility of a necessary being - hume

  P1 - nothing that is distinctly conceivable entails a contradiction

  P2 - for any being that we can conceive of as existent, we can also distinctly conceive of that being as non existent

  C - therefore there is no being, whose non existence entails a contradiction
• impossibility of a necessary being - Russel

  P1 - the concept of 'necessary' can only be applied to propositions, and in particular to propositions that are analytic

  P2 - an analytic proposition is one thats self contradictory to deny

  P3 - its not self contradictory to say 'God doesnt exist'

  C - therefore, 'God exists' isnt analytic and isnt a necessary proposition