cosmological argument (R + C)

• Russell: he regards himself as agnostic

  • Makes the point that the word “necessary” can only be applied to analytical  propositions  (he could admit a necessary being if there were a being whose is existence is self-contradictory to deny
• Copleston: 

  • If there is no God- no absolute being- there can be no absolute values? (which Russell doesn’t necessary agree with)
  • Dependent/contingent  beings like ourselves depend on parents for food shelter etc. but you cant have a world full of dependent beings because we could not make ourselves exist so there must be a necessary being that cannot not exist it contains within itself the reason for its own existence 
• Russell’s argument on the statement ‘God exists’:

  • Copleston identifies the definition of God as a necessary being and observes that beings are contingent the reason for our existence is dependent on other things 
  • Russell rejects this as there is no substantial evidence it can’t be empirically tested  and a necessary proposition has to be analytical 
  • Doesn't believe God is a necessary being ‘necessary being’ is an analytical statement “necessary” should only be applied to analytical propositions/ *statements of logic* e.g. ‘all bachelors are unmarried men’
• What does Copleston mean by sufficient reason and how does Russell refute (disprove/disapprove) 

  • “Cause of the world is God”- Russell says is a meaningless statement from Copleston
  • Copleston: God has his own sufficient reason
• Copleston reject infinite regression, chocolate analogy, Russell refutes this

  • If you add up an infinite number of chocolates with another infinite number of chocolates you get infinite chocolate, not something different If you add up infinite contingent beings with infinite contingent beings you get infinite contingent beings but they cant cause themselves so there must be a necessary being therefore there is no infinite regression 
  • Russell sees no reason for there to be any cause, concept of cause is something weve created from observing there is no reason to suppose there is a total cause.
• What is the basis of their different opinions on cause 

  • Russell- just because people are looking for causes doesn't imply that there are causes
• How is the argument concluded 

  • It is illegitimate even to ask the cause of the world and it is difficult to discuss if the question has no meaning (for Russell)