Transcript Other Responses Cosmological

Lesson Aim
To recall and explore
other forms of the
Cosmological
Argument.
Gottfried Leibniz 16461716





Leibniz explained the CA in the form
of the ‘principle of sufficient
reason’.
There must be an ultimate reason to
account for the existence of the world
itself.
This explanation cannot be from
within the world. It must be external.
For a sufficient reason for the world’s
existence there must be a being that
can create existence.
This being must necessarily exist.
This is what we call God.
Richard Swinburne - the answer lies
in the fact is something rather
nothing - implies a creator – “It’s
extraordinary that there should
exist anything at all…”pg. 36.
Other Responses
Copleston(1907-1994), Russell
(1872-1970) Hume (1711-1776)
and Kant.


Frederick Copleston argued that
there were some things that did
not have to come into existence.
They would not be, had the
things that caused them not
come together in the way that
they did.
Copleston’s argument was
proposed during a famous radio
debate with Bertrand Russell on
the BBC in 1947.



The universe is basically the sum of
all things that exist, and these objects
rely on things beyond themselves for
their existence.
Since the universe consists of
everything that there is, and none of
the contents can be the cause of its
existence, the cause for the existence
of the universe must be external to it.
The cause for the universe must be
self causing. Copleston calls this a
‘necessary being’. It must exist
independently of anything else, and
as such is outside the universe.
Russell’s Response

The whole concept of cause
is one we derive from our
observation of particular
things; I see no reason
whatsoever to suppose that
the total has any cause
whatsoever …. What I am
saying is that the concept of
cause is not applicable to
the total.

Russell was denying that the
universe needed any explanation
at all for its existence.

Why I am not a Christian? ‘The
universe is just there and that’s all
there is to say’. Claim makes the
existence of the universe a brute
fact. .
Claiming that the universe has a
cause because everything in it has
a cause is like claiming that
because every human being has a
mother, the entire human race has
a mother.


Russell’s universe would appear to
be entirely without reason. The
religious person would reply that
the universe is intelligible, and the
cause of an intelligent creative
power.

Russell has attracted criticism for
his apparent lack of curiosity
about the cause and origins of the
universe.

Copleston criticised Russell.
His response was
unsatisfactory – pg. 28
Tyler. Quote.

Russell’s lack of curiosity
about the origins of the
universe is odd, given his
generally inquisitive and
scientific approach.
1. Give an outline of
some of the criticisms
of the Cosmological
argument.
2. Do you think the
criticisms refute the
theory as a whole???
Immanuel Kant





Central criticism – challenged
notion of necessary existence.
Necessity cannot attach itself
contingent concept like
existence. He rejects this idea.
Not move from physical
premises (we experience) to
metaphysical conclusions.
Kant – a) Existence is not a
property. B) Existence is a
synthetic matter.
Hume also challenged this
notion – no being must
necessarily exist – even if it
does why call it God?
David Hume 17111776
Hume also argued against a ‘First
Cause’ for the universe. He
maintained that the fact that
everything within the universe has a
cause does not necessarily mean
that the universe itself must have a
cause.
 He argued that we have no
experience of universes being made,
and we cannot speak meaningfully
about the creation of the universe. To
move from ‘everything that we
observe has a cause’ to the ‘universe
has a cause’ is too big a leap in
logic.
 Argument guilty what is called –
“inductive leap of logic” – why do we
need a 1st cause for the whole
chain?? Nothing in premises lead
identify God a necessary being as
cause.
John L Mackie 19171981
Mackie responded to the criticisms of
Aquinas (in pack). Modern science
and mathematics had moved on from
the medieval world-view, which was
very hierarchical.
 He defended the idea that there
cannot be an infinite regression of
causes.
 It is not logical to think of a railway
train consisting simply of an infinite
number of carriages; the train must
ultimately have an engine to drive it.
Nor can you have a watch which has
a movement determined by an infinite
sequence of cogs and springs; the
movement must begin with the
mainspring and end with the hands
on the face of the watch.
Subject criticism not only field philosophy also science
Anthony Kenny 1931



Kenny bases his observations on
Newton’s Laws of Motion and noted
his First Law of Motion.
A body’s velocity would remain
unchanged unless some other forcesuch as friction-acted upon it.
Kenny thinks that Newton’s law
proves Aquinas wrong. It is possible
that an object can be in one of two
states – stationary or moving at a
constant rate- without any external
force acting on it.
This would appear to mean that
Aquinas’s statement that nothing
moves itself is incorrect.
Modern science




Further challenges to Aquinas’s
ideas regarding the uncaused
cause come from subatomic
physics.
Particles have been observed to
disappear and reappear without
any apparent cause.
The Big Bang theory appears to
support the idea of a time when
the universe did not exist.
Since it is not possible to add to
a number of days (Ed Miller) the
universe appears to be finite.

However, some say that the
Big Bang did not mark the
beginning of the universe,
but simply the beginning of
this particular phase of the
universe. Some scientists
argue for an oscillating
universe, where this is only
one of a series of expanding
and contracting universes.
Does the argument have
value?



A posteriori argument –
draws on universally
available evidence.
Appeal – offers way of
explaining the universe.
Puzzled why there is
something rather than
nothing?? Argument strong.
Conclusions…



CA fatally flawed relies on
outdated scientific thinking of
Aristotle and the postulation of a
necessary being. Thinking
superseded.
No substantial proof believing in
God – certainly not the Christian
concept of God. Illogical jump –
name God. Aquinas’ version
even an arg for polytheism – no
6th argument cause all one God
– could five??
Premises only lead to postulate
God as explanation – if we are
not satisfied this conclusion
argument fails (atheist not
forced to theism).
Mind Map
P: Every event must have a cause.
P: The universe is an event.
C: God is the cause of the universe.
A posteriori,
inductive
Conclusions
Long History – Plato,
Aquinas….
Cosmological
Argument
Most pop
Aquinas –
…….
……