Cosmological Argument

• The Cosmological argument is an a posteriori argument, which means it is based on experience. The Cosmological argument is based on observation of everything in the universe being contingent and therefore requiring a creator which is necessary
• The type of inference involved in the Cosmological argument from the premises to the conclusion is inductive. Inductive arguments are those for which the premises count as evidence for, in support of, a conclusion.
• P1. We observe that there are contingent beings.

  P2. A series of contingent beings cannot regress infinitely into the past.

  C1. So, a series of contingent beings must be finite.

  P3. If this finite series was all that existed, then before it would be nothing.

  P4. If there was once nothing, there would be nothing now, which is absurd.

  C1. So, there must be more than this finite series of contingent beings, i.e., a necessary being.

  P5. There cannot be an infinite regress of necessary beings.

  C3. There must be a necessary being “having of itself its own necessity … That thing we call God.”
• Aquinas claims an infinite regress is impossible because If there is an infinite regress, then time has existed forever. So there must be an infinite amount of time before the present moment. That means that to get to the present moment, an infinite amount of time must have passed. However, an infinite amount of time cannot pass. 
• Fallacy of Composition

  It is a fallacy to assume that what is true of a thing’s part(s) must also be true of the whole. Bertrand Russell illustrated this by pointing out that just because every human (parts) has a mother, that doesn’t mean the human race (whole) has a mother. Experience shows that parts of the universe are contingent & have an explanation. This doesn’t mean the universe itself as a whole must also be contingent (have an explanation).
• Reichenbach

  tba
• There is a disconnect between logical (analytic) truths which are necessary (cannot be otherwise) and factual (synthetic) truths which can. The term “necessary existence” violates this disconnect. It is about what factually exists, so must be synthetic. Yet, it somehow also has the “cannot be otherwise” property that only belongs to logical analytic truths.