cosmological

• why is there something rather than nothing?
• also known as aquinas' cosmological argument, the third way and the inductive argument from contingency and necessity
• the cosmological argument is an a posteriori, inductive attempt to prove god's existence
• aquinas based his arguments on two assumptions:

  the universe exists

  there must be a reason why

  • russell and dawkins! just is
• all things we see in the universe are contingent
• the fact that everything in the universe depends on something else for its existence means that the universe as a whole depends on something else for its existence.
• 1. everything in the universe is contingent
  2. there was a point where each thing that exists did not exist, therefore there was a point where nothing contingent existed
  3. nothing comes from nothing
  4. something must exist necessarily - god
• "Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence – which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something" Aquinas
• This being derives its necessity from itself, it does not depend on anything else and is responsible for all things. This is the concept that people refer to as God.
• hume - fallacy of composition

  from an effect, we cannot infer a cause

  we cannot infer that something is true for the whole from the fact it is true from a part

  illustrated by russell - Every man who exists has a mother, and it seems to me your argument is that therefore the human race must have a mother, but obviously the human race hasn’t a mother
• Every man who exists has a mother, and it seems to me your argument is that therefore the human race must have a mother, but obviously the human race hasn’t a mother
• matter

  matter may be necessary within itself - it has to exist and cannot pass out of existence and therefore the universe itself may be necessary
• necessary being has no meaning

  necessary cannot be applied to things, only statements in logic where B necessarily follows from A

  necessary is only appropriate for statements of definition
• responding to the fallacy of composition

  reichenbach - it is not fallacious to argue from the claim that 'the wall is built of bricks' to the conclusion that 'the wall is brick'. the whole has the same quality as the parts
• status as a proof

  inductive - probability not proof

  • overwhelming probability, hughes argued that we have no direct observational evidence of quarks existence but their indirect evidence is so overwhelming they could be a proof
• hughes “The chain of explanations will be complete and satisfying only if in the end one reaches something which has not ‘just happened’, simply come into existence; in short, the chain will end when it reaches something which cannot not exist, that is to say, exists necessarily. In short, the explanation will stop when one gets to a Necessary Being."
• value for religious faith

  shows faith as reasonable

  easy to understand and see

  natural theology and revelation - understood and have value for everyone

  h h price
• infinite regress - In the Cosmological Argument, this is an indefinite sequence of causes or beings which does not have a first member of the series.