Cosmological argument

• intro and Key Words

  an a posteriori, inductive, synthetic attempt to prove the necessary existence of god through observations of contingency in the universe
• Aquinas' 3rd Way

  
  

  • everything in the universe is contingent
  • due to the nature of contingent things, there must've been a point where nothing existed
  • nothing comes from nothing, but that's absurd as there is stuff now so there must be something that exists necessarily
  • that thing is God
• Hume Objections- fallacy of composition


  
  

  • once you know the cause of each part in a set of 20 you understand the set, uniting parts into a whole w a need for an explanation like countries into a kingdom is an arbitrary act of the mind.
  • the same thing is true with the universe, we know the causes of the things within so there is no call to find the one greater cause for the whole. you can't infer from every individual has a cause to the whole universe has a cause
• objection to hume

  
  

  • to object to hume's fork and the idea you can't show the existence of a being as logically necessary, it could be argued the third way is arguing for gods metaphysical necessity rather than logical necessity as its talking about how its metaphysically necessary for a necessary being to cause the contingent beings observable in the universe
• Russell's objections- fallacy of composition


  
  

  • just because things within the universe have a cause doesn't mean the universe as a whole has a cause
  • "every man who exists has a mother... therefore the human race must have a mother"
  • Aquinas' assumption that the everything in the universe being contingent, so the universe must be is committing a fallacy
  • russell rejects the idea of a prime mover
• Reichenbach's response to Russell's fallacy of composition

  
  

  • All bricks in the wall are small therefore the wall is small is fallacious
  • but the wall is built of bricks therefore the wall is brick is not
  • says the third way, which argues the universe is made of contingent things therefore it is contingent is more similar to the second non-fallicious example, so the Third Way stands
• strengths

  
  

  • based on observations of contingency within the universe
• Status as Proof

  
  

  • inductive, deals in probabilities rather than proofs, proof could need to be a priori like ontological argument. although again it could be proposed as a proof based on overwhelming probability / beyond reasonable doubt like crime investigation
• Value for religious faith

  
  

  • shows religious faith to be reasonable, its a reasonable hypothesis that the universe owes it's existence to a necessary being, no less probable than other alternative explanations
• hume objections- hume's fork


  
  

  • statements about existence can't be logically necessary as necessary beings cant be thought not to exist, but you can definitely conceive god not existing. its not the same as saying something like a triangle has 4 sides
• basis of the argument

  it relies on the question "why is there something, rather than nothing?"
• infinite regress

  
  

  You need something to explain the chain of beings, to explain a series you can't just add another item to it there has to be something to explain why there's a chain in the first place.
• hume objections

  
  

  • finite causes are likely to produce finite effects, we cant infer a greater cause than what is required to create an effect.
  • so its illicit to infer that an infinite cause like the judeo christian god made our finite universe.
  • instead it could've been something else like a team of gods a team of demon or lesser deities
• humes objection

  the universe itself could be necessary, "why may not the material universe be the necessarily existent being... we dare not affirm that we know all the qualities of matter" one on the properties may be it has to exist
• hume objection- an infinite regress is possible

  the chain could just never end as if the universe were eternal, it would be absurd to talk of it having a cause so an infinite series of contingent things isn't impossible
• Russell Objections

  necessary being has no meaning- the term 'necessary' only applies to statements in logic where B necessarily follows A like bachelors being unmarried men. Its only appropriate for statements of definition and doesn't make sense to talk of God as so
• Russell Objections

  -the concept of cause doesn't apply- the universe exists as an unexplainable brute fact and is totally uncaused "i should say that the universe is just there, and that's all" and we could never grasp the entire concept of the scheme of the universe to find a fully complete explanation anyway. Russell provides an example of striking a match to get a flame - is this a Sufficient Reason? If you ask, 'What's the explanation for this flame?' is it sufficient to reply 'Someone struck a match'? no the reason is so complicated you could probably never fully explain it
• strengths

  • the basic idea of why is there something rather than nothing is easy to understand and resonates with lots of people
• strengths

  • a posteriori so based on empirical evidence
• weaknesses

  • its a god of the gaps explanation, we have the discovery of the big bang now so we don't need a god as an explanation for where the universe came from
• weaknesses

  • inductive arguments are only probable, they can't be outright proofs
• weaknesses

  • it doesn't follow that the necessary being has to be god, feels more like aquinas assuming it is because he is already religious, could be a group of necessary beings why just one?
• weaknesses

  • the argument is unsound because it commits the fallacy of composition
• weaknesses

  • the problem of evil follows this, why would god create this evil universe, it must be something else
• weaknesses

  • the universe itself may be the necessary being or exists as an unexplainable brute fact
• weaknesses

  • there could be an infinite regress of contingent being without any need for a first necessary being
• strength

  • science works on the assumption that there are no brute facts, otherwise science wouldn't work, if things in the universe are not brute facts why would the universe in its entirety be?
• status as proof

  • not even satisfactory explanations can appeal to brute facts, Hughes suggests that while its logically possible the universe exists as a brute fact, or is uncaused, it's unlikely. "a chain of explanation will be complete and satisfying only if in the end one reaches something which has not just happened"
• status as proof

  • Gerry J Hughes argued that we accept proofs other than those in logic and maths based on what we can reasonably conclude about the real world like quarks. god is an unobservable entity whose existence it would be unreasonable to deny
• value for religious faith

  • simple and thus can be understood and have value for any believer, the observation of contingency is available to everyone
• value for religious faith

  • aquinas believed that you needed both revelation and natural theology , so it works with existing beliefs that are solely faith based like transubstantiation or the virgin birth
• value for religious faith- H.H Price

  Belief in vs belief that. belief that god exists is supported by the cosmological argument but belief in god is a matter of faith. this distinction supports the idea that faith is a separate issue from reasoned arguments for god like the design argument
• value for religious faith

  the third way could give the support of reason and philosophy to faith, for people who are unsure the cosmological argument tells that god must exist, not just that he does
• value for religious faith- swinburne's cumulative argument for god

  claims that individually, arguments for god's existence are weak but cumulatively they could be persuasive. however, flew uses the analogy of leaky buckets, says arguments for god make a bucket but the flaws are all holes and it is pointless trying to fill a bucket full of holes. the more arguments you add, the more flaws and the less the argument holds water
• value for religious faith

  doesn't have value because religious faith is a special state of mind, doesn't need supporting arguments, a la Kierkergaard's argument we must take a "leap of faith" with infinite passion contrary to reason to embrace god
• objection to hume

  • against finite causes finite effects and team of gods, Occam's razor, but only if you actually agree w/ occam's razor on principle, so it is a weak objection
• objection to hume

  • fallacy of composition, the causes of each thing within the universe still don't explain what caused the set to happen. similarly to how he dismisses infinite regress by saying adding another piece to the set doesn't explain the set.
• objection to hume

  • the idea of the universe being the necessary being aquinas could respond with the distinction he uses in his argument between caused and uncaused necessary being, and claim the universe is a caused necessary being unlike god.
  • however that is moreso speculation.
  • but the universe having a beginning in the big bang does suggest it's not necessary in a way to explain why there's something rather than nothing
• objection to russell

  against the necessary only applying to statements of logic and definition, the same argument that the third way is claiming god's metaphysical necessity rather than his logical one can be used
• objections to russell

  against the universe being a brute fact you can say that science is based on the assumption there are no brute facts, russell is being unscientific, there's no good reason to assume the universe is a brute fact you can't understand the entirety of. we aren't unable to, we just haven't done it yet