Transcript The Cosmological Argument

The Cosmological Argument
• This is an a posteriori argument
• There are many versions of it
• It is based on observation and
understanding of the universe
• It depends upon asking the questions
• Why? How? Who?
St Thomas Aquinas
• Aquinas always places an emphasis on
the use of reason in faith. He believed that
reason was a God given gift and as such
had to be used to seek knowledge and
understanding of God.
• He believed that reason supported faith
and that a person could come to an
understanding of God through the intellect.
The Five Ways
• In his great work Summa Theologica Aquinas
puts forward his Five Ways to demonstrate the
existence of God from our universe.
• They are often mistakenly called the Five Proofs.
• Aquinas’ starting point was as a believer and he
appeared to be showing how someone who
believes could have their faith strengthened by
their intellect and reason
•
•
•
•
•
•
Motion
Cause
Contingency
Gradation
Design
The first three are commonly regarded as
making up the Cosmological Argument (or
should that be Arguments?)
Motion
• In common with Plato and Aristotle,
Aquinas saw all things were in the process
of change and becoming (or had the
potential to become)
• Nothing changes unless it is acted upon
by something else.
• Therefore there has to be a Prime Mover
that began the changes
• This, for Aquinas, is God
Cause
• All things are caused by something else.
• There is nothing in our universe that is
uncaused or has within itself its own cause
of existence
• Therefore there has to be a First Cause to
which all other causes owe their existence
• This First Cause is God.
Contingency
• Probably the most interesting of the three.
So clever you can brush your teeth with it!
• There is nothing that we know of that is
not dependent on something else.
• Things come into existence and then
cease to be.
• Therefore, given an infinite time, there was
a time when nothing existed
• If there once was nothing then something
cannot come from nothing.
• Therefore something must necessarily
exist (have necessary or non-contingent
existent) to bring things into existence. It
must be external to the universe, have
always existed and be independent of it
• This non-contingent being is God
• Why can there not be an infinite
regresssion of the universe?
• Why does it have to have had a
beginning?
The Kalam Argument
• Originally an Arabic idea.
• Can there be a sequence back to infinity?
• Consider – you have a library with an
infinite number of red books and an infinite
number of green books.
• Can you remove the green books?
• What are you left with?
William Craig’s version of the
Kalam Argument (1979)
• Infinity is a concept. It cannot increase or
decrease.
• Cannot add to infinity so the present
should not exist.
• The present does exist
• Therefore the universe is finite and had to
have a cause.
• Its cause is either natural or by
intervention
• Laws of Nature did not exist before the
universe began (that would be a
nonsense)
• Therefore the universe cannot be the
result of the laws of nature
• Therefore it is a result of a decision to
intervene
• This leads us to a creator ex nihilo outside
of time and space
Have a look
• www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sfp5--zfBRA
• www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYsmb2GlDr
0
Problem
• If the cosmological argument is empirically
based on observation of the way our
universe works there is a fundamental
flaw…..
Weaknesses
• David Hume – (remember his name – he
is important throughout our course.)
• Scottish, lived in the 18th century and was
a philosopher well ahead of his time.
• He was an atheist
• A child of the enlightenment.
Hume’s points
• Our perspective is from within the universe. We
can only talk about those laws that occur from
inside the universe
• (the goldfish in the bowl mentality)
• We cannot be outside the universe to be able to
study the universe in an impartial, unbiased
manner.
• If we cannot be outside the universe we cannot
talk about the cause of the universe since our
only experience of cause and effect is internal
Hume
• There is only one universe (by definition)
therefore we have nothing to compare it to
so we cannot make a meaningful
judgement. (think about how science
conducts experiments to reach a
conclusion – many times and always a
control)
• If we have no point of reference we cannot
draw conclusions about the universe
Hume
• To illustrate his point Hume uses this
example.
• Each human being has a mother but this
doesn’t mean humanity has a mother
• All things in the universe are caused but
this doesn’t mean the universe is caused
Hume
• Does Cause and Effect really exist?
• Is it not just our interpretation of the way
things are?
• We cannot prove that something is caused
by something else only that when we do
one thing then something else happens
that appears to be linked but the link may
only be in our minds.
The Radio Debate
• 1947 a radio debate between F
Coppleston and B Russell
• Coppleston used the argument that
nothing in the universe contains within
itself the reason for its existence – all
things have an external reason (a version
of contingency)
Russell
• Existence is a brute fact – the universe
just is.
• It doesn’t require a reason or explanation.
• He did not believe it necessary to ask the
question ‘why?’.
• He drew the distinction between existence
and contingency.
• Existence means something exists.
• Contingency is simply our way of
explaining the way things relate to one
another but not an explanation of their
existence.
But our experience makes this hard to
accept.
Other ideas
• There are many other ideas and
interpretations of the Cosmological
Argument.
• Most philosophers have something to say
on it.
• It can become quite hard to follow some of
the arguments. Be aware of your syllabus
but if you want to read further………
To conclude
• The heart of the argument rests upon whether
the universe needs an explanation for its
existence or whether it just exists as a brute fact.
• Is the use of God to explain the universe a
simpler explanation than any other (Ockham’s
Razor)
• If you accept the need for explanation then is it
reasonable to use the evidence within the
universe to argue for something that is outside
the universe?
•
•
•
•
What might it demonstrate?
A being who can create universes
Doesn’t have to be God – remember Startrek.
Even if its convincing it does not lead us to the
God of Christianity.
• Maybe its important to remember Aquinas’ Sitz
im Leben (his Blik) Faith being strengthened by
reason.
• Finished………………….?
Two new thoughts
• Quantum Physics – appears to be
destroying traditional understanding of
cause and effect. It allows for random
events that appear to be uncaused or
random (light)
• If things within the universe can happen
without apparent cause then can the
universe happen without apparent cause?
Richard Dawkins
• (remember him – he is my bete noir and
nemesis)
• If God made the universe there should be
evidence for it.
• He believes there is no evidence. He draws a
parallel to those who believe in fairies at the
bottom of the garden – there is no evidence but
the belief persists based on the teaching of a
previous generation.
• (How insulting)