criticisms

• the main criticisms of the cosmological argument come from Hume + Russell
• Russell argued that Aquinas was guilty of fallacy of composition

  • what is true of the parts is not necessarily true of the whole e.g. hydrogen isn't wet; oxygen is not wet; therefore H2O (water) is not wet
  • just because what we see in the world is caused, does not mean the universe itself has a cause
• Hume + Russell rejected the concept of a necessary being

  • statements about existence are synthetic (based on sense) rather than analytic (based on logic)
  • there is no contradiction in stating that God does not exist
• Hume suggested that the universe may be a necessarily existent being itself

  • conforms to Occam's Razor - doesn't have the added entity of a God
• Aquinas' response to Russell's accusation of fallacy of composition:

  • we do not know enough about the universe to decide whether this is true
• Russell suggested the universe existed as a brute fact
• Aquinas responded to Russell's brute fact criticism:

  • science relies on the assumption that there are no brute facts, otherwise science wouldn't work
  • if things in the universe are not brute facts, why should the universe as a whole be a brute fact?
• Aquinas responded to Hume's criticism that the universe itself could be a necessarily existent being:

  • had no problem with the idea that universe might exist necessarily but it would still need to be caused to be necessary + therefore need God to cause its existence
• Hume argued Aquinas had made an inductive leap

  • moved from establishing the need for an uncaused causer to identifying this as God
  • the argument starts with the assumption there is a God, when this is what it is trying to prove
  • starts with something within our experience, moves to reach conclusions outside of this