The Cosmological Argument

• who is the main philosopher associated with the cosmological argument?

  aquinas
• aquinas' argument is a posteriori:

  • that means it is empirical in nature
  • it is based on sense experience.
• aquinas' argument is inductive:

  • is based on probability and not knock-down proof
  • its premises are synthetic in nature
  • they are not necessarily true; the stronger the evidence for them, the more likely they are to be true.
• aquinas' way 3 focuses on contingency and necessity:

  • everything in the cosmos is contingent
  • something must therefore exist necessarily as its cause
• cosmos

  this universe of space and time
• aquinas had five ways, this argument focuses on the third
• first part of the argument:

  1. because everything in the natural world is contingent, there must have been a time when nothing existed. 'out of nothing, nothing can come'. but this is ridiculous because vast numbers of contingent things now exist.
  2. so that means that something must exist necessarily.
• second part of the argument:

  1. everything that is necessary must be caused or uncaused. aquinas refers to the possibility of infinite regress of caused necessary beings (e.g. angels, human souls). but this is also ridiculous because then there would be no ultimate cause of the series and so no series at all
  2. so there must be an uncaused necessary being responsible for the existence of all caused necessary beings and all contingent beings.
  3. 'this all men speak of as god'- aquinas: summa theologica
• what two people criticised the cosmological argument?

  hume and Russell
• Russell argued that aquinas was guilty of the fallacy of comparison:

  • what is trie of the parts is not necessarily true of the whole
  • just because what we see in the world is caused, it doesn't mean that the universe itself has a cause.
• hume and Russell rejected the concept of a necessary being

  • statements about existence are synthetic (based on the senses) rather than analytic (based on logic)
  • there is no contradiction in stating that god does not exist.
• analytic statements

  based on logic
• synthetic statements

  based on the senses
• hume suggested that the universe might be a necessarily-existent being

  • this logic conforms to Occam's razor: the conclusion is most likely if it requires fewer assumptions. that is to say, the universe could be necessarily existent rather than contingent upon an unseen, necessarily-existent god.
• Occam's razor

  the rule that if there are competing theories, the simpler one is the better.

  in more technical terms: the conclusion that is most likely is the one that requires fewer assumptions.
• Russell took a different approach to hume and claimed that the existence of the universe is simply unexplainable, it is just a brute fact.
• hume argued for the possibility of infinite regress: it can reasonably be asked what caused god.
• hume argued that nothing can be said about the nature of god as a necessarily-existent being.
• brute fact

  a fact that has and needs no explanation.
• infinite regress

  an indefinite sequence of causes or beings which doesn't have a first member of the series.
• weakness and counter-argument of aquinas' way 3

  • fallacy of composition- what is true of the parts may not be true of the whole
  • this is not always the case, e.g. each of the 50 states of the USA is in the northern hemisphere & the USA is in the northern hemisphere. the second statement is not false.
• weakness and counter-argument of aquinas' way 3

  • the universe could be a necessarily-existent being. this is supported by the principle of conversation of matter and by some modern cosmological theories.
  • the case for necessarily-existing matter is no stronger than that for a necessarily-existing mind. moreover, scientific cosmological theories do not explain why there is something rather than nothing, whereas the idea of god does.
• weakness and counter-argument of aquinas' way 3

  • the universe could just be brute fact
  • however, most people seek an explanation for things and this is also how science operates.
• weakness and counter-argument of aquinas' way 3

  • why not infinite regress of contingent beings?
  • this still doesn't explain why there is something rather than nothing. when science looks for an explanation, it generally finds one or expects to do so as knowledge increases. moreover, there is no evidence for the existence of an infinite past sequence in the real world, although mathematics contains this idea.
• weakness and counter-argument of aquinas' way 3

  • it cannot be shown that the existence of any being is logically necessary
  • however, hume misunderstood aquinas. aquinas was talking about god's metaphysical (not logical) necessity.
• weakness and counter-argument of aquinas' way 3

  • why just one necessary being?
  • application of Occam's razor supports the idea of a single being
• aquinas' way 3 doesn't provide proof of the existence of god & response

  • only deductive arguments can give absolute proof. the cosmological argument is inductive so can never be absolutely certain.
  • however, most things we accept as true in life are based on inductive arguments- they are accepted as 'true beyond reasonable doubt'. the stronger the evidence, the more probably true a claim is. science adopts this approach with the existence of quarks, for which there is no direct evidence but there is strong indirect evidence.
• aquinas' way 3 doesn't provide proof of the existence of god & response

  • aquinas' way 3 will never convince atheists
  • this may be true, but it may be that no argument, however rational, would convince those whose view of the world is fixed. for a theist, however, way 3 might seem to give a reasoned proof of god as the necessary uncaused cause.
• fallacy of composition

  the fallacy of inferring that what is true of the parts of the whole is true of the whole itself.
• metaphysical necessity

  a form of necessity that derives from the nature or essence of things.
• quarks

  elementary particles assumed to be the one of the building blocks of matter.
• the positive side of aquinas' way 3 for religious faith

  • its a reasonable hypothesis. alternative explanations for the origin of the universe have no greater probability.
  • difficult language, but the concept is easy to understand. the idea is accessible to any christian and not just theologians
  • supported by the design argument.
• a negative point of the value of aquinas' way 3 for religious faith

  not all theists accept it

  • Kant rejected it because he thought the idea of god as a necessary being was dependent on the ontological argument
  • Karl Barth rejected all attempts to prove god's existence through reason.
• a negative point of the value of aquinas' way 3 for religious faith

  aquinas himself didn't think it was sufficient on its own

  • faith is supported by reason but natural theology cannot give knowledge of doctrines such as the trinity
  • these doctrines are revealed in the bible and in the teachings of the church
  • faith is a gift of god's grace that enables believers to understand them
• a negative point of the value of aquinas' way 3 for religious faith

  the theist Stephen Evans regards the argument as having limited value because it doesn't indicate the god of christian theism

  • he saw it as at best pointing to a deist god
  • gerry hughes has reservations about it for the same reason.
• grace

  the christian doctrine of the undeserved and unconditional love and mercy that god shows to humanity.