Transcript Cosmological Argument

The Cosmological Argument
The Causal Chain
Take a simple fact of the world – your presence in
this class room (by the way: do you know what
facts are?). Write this fact down as the end point of
a chain of causes (Cn). Now, note on the left hand
side the direct cause of your being here (Cn-1), then
to the left the cause of that fact (Cn-2)and so on. Try
to extend this chain in a way that you can find the
ultimate cause (C0) that caused your being in this
class room. You have 10 minutes.
The Cosmological Argument
Everything that exists seems to be caused by
something. Therefore, a regress looms (one of the
most unpleasant things in philosophical arguments).
If you think that everything has to be caused by
something and that something or something must
have made a start with causing everything else, you
already understand what lies behind CosmArg: God
is the First Mover.
Burning questions?
Before we start to have a closer look at CosmArg
try to understand the motivation behind it. Think
about and discuss if you find the following
questions relevant. Or maybe you even have an
answer?
• Why is there something rather than nothing?
• Why does the universe the form it does, and not
some other form?
• How can the series of events that are the
universe be explained?
Burning questions?
• Why should we not accept an infinite regress as
explanation for the proceedings of the universe?
• What kind of cause or agency is necessary for
the universe to come into being?
• Does this universe have special features (e.g.
regularity, purpose, (can you find others?)? If
so: How can they be explained?
Hopefully, you will have found some of these
questions worth answering. Otherwise, CosmArg
will not appeal to you very much.
Formalities
Now you should have a first vague impression what
CosmArg is about. Remember: We want to
demonstrate God‘s existence. With what you know
about arguments: Write down an argument for GE
using the cosmological background.
Describe the formal structure of the argument:
What type of argument does it have to be? What
kind of reasoning lies behind?
Preliminaries I: Plato
Plato introduced an important distinction between
primary and secondary movers:
Primary movers have the power to move themselves
and others.
Secondary movers can only move themselves or
others once the have been moved.
Find clear examples of Sm‘s! What about an ant?
Find reasons to put describe as Sm! What then
about human beings? What is the impact of all this
for CosmArg?
Preliminaries II: Aristotle
Aristotle believed that change in the universe
presupposes a first unmoved mover. He argues for
this in Metaphysics, Beta (Why is A‘s Metaphysics
called Metaphysics?).
Look at the argument on the following page and
check if it sound and valid.
Pay special attention to the form of the argument
which is very common in philosophy. It derives its
name from its form. Any suggestions?
Aristotle on the Unmoved Mover
P1: Either the chain of causes and effects (cce) has a
beginning (A) or it does not have a beginning (B).
P2: If it does not have a beginning, there is no ultimate
cause.
P3: In that case, cce would be without cause (2).
P4: If nothing caused cce, there would be no cce at all:
Nothing can come from nothing.
P5: There clearly is a cce.
C: Therefore: (B) is false, cce has an ultimative cause (4, 5,
1).
Thomas Aquinas and the Five Ways
St Thomas Aquinas was one of the most influential
philosophers of the Christian middle age. He
proposed Five Ways to prove the existence of God:
•
•
•
•
•
The First Way – from motion (CosmArg I)
The Second Way – from cause (CosmArg II)
The Third Way – from necessity (CosmArg III)
The Fourth Way – the Ontological Argument
The Fifth Way – the Teleological (Design)
Argument
Thomas Aquinas and the Five Ways
After what we said so far you should be able to
have a go at the first two versions of CosmArg
yourself. Remember: The background of the
argument was Aristotle‘s argument.
With this in mind, try to prove God‘s existence
(inductively) by referring the the fact that
everything in the universe is moving (CosmArg I)
and by referring to the fact that everything has a
cause (CosmArg II).
Aquinas: The First Way
Now, read through Aquinas‘ text. Identify the
passage which contains the argument for the first
way! Distil from this text the argument! What are
the premises, what the conclusion?
What form does the argument have? What does it
remind you of?
Compare it to your argument from motion! Which
one do you think is better – or more conclusive?
Aquinas: The Argument from Motion
P1: Some things are in motion (eg burning wood).
P2: Either everything is a secondary mover (A) or there is (at
least one) prime mover (B).
P3: If (A) was true there would be an infinite regress of
(secondary) movers without a primary mover.
P4: Secondary movers require a primary mover.
P5: (A) must be false (Redadabs from 3, 4).
C: Therefore: There must be a prime mover which we call
God (from 5, 2).
Reaction to the argument
What is your first response to this argument? Is it
sound? Is it valid? Are all premises necessary? May
it be begging the question?
Aquinas: The Second Way
Read again through Aquinas‘ text. Identify the
passage which contains the argument for the
second way! Distil from this text the argument!
What are the premises, what the conclusion?
What form does the argument have? What does it
remind you of?
Compare it to your argument from cause! Which
one do you think is better – or more conclusive?
Aquinas: The Argument from Cause
P1: Every event in the universe has a cause.
P2 : Nothing can be the cause of itself.
P3 : Either there is an infinite chain of causes (A) or the
chain of causes was set off by a first cause (B).
P4: Without a first cause there would be no subsequent
effect at all. (1, 2)
P5: (A) must be false (Redadabs from 3, 4).
C: Therefore: The universe must have a first cause which we
call God (from 5, 2).
Reaction to the argument
What is your first response to this argument? Is it
sound? Is it valid? Are all premises necessary? May
it be begging the question?
Criticisms of CosmArg I and II
Believers were not necessarily happy with the
nature of the God that was proved (if successful)
with CosmArg I and II. Can you think of a reason
why?
Looked at it a certain way God does not seem to
have to bother with world once he set it off!
Are there alternative interpretations? Or on the
other hand: Would that be so bad after all?
Criticisms of CosmArg I and II
Have you spotted a possible contradiction in
CosmArg II? Have a closer look!
(Nothing can cause itself)  (God is the first cause
implying he caused himself)
Or even worse: If there is a first cause – why
should not the universe itself take this place
(compare David Hume?)
Is there a way to disarm these criticisms?
Criticisms of CosmArg I and II
Compare premises 3 and 4 of CosmArg I and 2 and
4 of CosmArg II. Does Aquinas get the concept of
„infinite“ right?
Mackie: If something is infinite it does not have a
first cause (as an infinite chain of hooks is attached
nowhere) – compare  in Mathematics!
How can a proper philosopher refute this criticism?
The infinite regress fallacy is a very powerful tool in
philosophy – for good reasons. Explain when and
why!
Criticisms of CosmArg I and II
What is cause? What is effect? Does Aquinas get it
right?
David Hume proposed a completely different
account of accusation that brings down CosmArg!
What do you think about it?
E. Anscombe thought she could refute Hume by
pointing out that we cannot imagine anything
having no cause at all.
What do you think about that? Valid against Hume?
Criticisms of CosmArg I and II
Bertrand Russell with quantum physics: We know
that on a quantum level there are occurences that
lie outside the realm of cause and effect.
Satisfactory against Aquinas?
Criticisms of CosmArg I and II
David Hume accused CosmArg of the Fallacy of
Composition: If in a group of items every item
does have the same property it is unreasonable to
conclude that the group as a whole has this
property as well.
Find examples! This is really funny!
Explain how this is a strong argument against
CosmArg I and II! Are you convinced?
Your go at the Third Way
The Third Way exploits the fact that most of the
things we know have a contingent existence. Do
you understand what that means? Can you think of
anything that is not contingent? What is something
if it is not contingent?
Aquinas wants to prove God by demonstrating that
we must assume a necessary Being. How would
that prove God?
Have a go and try to think of an argument!
Aquinas: The Third Way
Now, read through Aquinas‘ text. Identify the
passage which contains the argument for the third
way! Distil from this text the argument! What are
the premises, what the conclusion? Be careful, the
argument is rather complicated!
What form does the argument have?
Compare it to your argument from necessity! Which
one do you think is better – or more conclusive?
The Argument from Necessity I
P1: All Things in the world are contingent (in their existence).
P2 : If everything is contingent there must have been a time
when the corruption of all things coincided and as a result
there remained nothing.
P3 : If (3) was true there would be nothing now as nothing
can come from nothing – but this is false. (Redadabs)
C1: Therefore: Not everything can be contingent (in its
existence), at least one thing must exist necessarily (1, 2, 3).
The Argument from Necessity II
P4: Every necessary thing (everything that exists by
necessity) has the cause of its necessity in itself (A) or
outside itself (B).
P5 : If (B) was true there would be no ultimate cause of the
necessity which is impossible (Abbreviated Redadabs from
CosmArg II – spell it out yourself!)
C2: Therefore: There must be a being that not only exists by
necessity but that causes and sustains itself and all other
necessary and contingent Beings – God.
Reaction to the argument
What is your first response to this argument? Is it
sound? Is it valid? Are all premises necessary? May
it be begging the question?
Contingency – Necessity
These are very important concepts. Make two lists
in which you describe what both concepts imply!
Contingency
Necessity
•
existence dependent
on other things
•
existence independent on other things
•
implemented
corruption
•
is eternal
•
could not be different
no matter whatever
else is the case
•
it might have been
different
Criticisms of CosmArg III
Some criticisms of CosmArg II target CosmArg III
as well. Which? Why?
Mackie against the infinite regress because P5 relies
on CosmArg II.
Another Fallacy in CosmArg III according to Mackie:
„every thing at some does not exist“  „at some
time everything does not exist“!
Explain how this can be used as an argument
against Aquinas!
Kant/Hume against CosmArg III
CosmArg III relies on a certain interpretation of the
concept of necessity, namely the possibility that
things in the world can be necessary.
This is hard: Try to find out what necessity is! Can
you think of things that exist necessarily! What
would that mean? In which other words could you
describe that phenomenon? Or is it something else
that can only be necessary – something that is not
a thing? And what might that be?
Kant/Hume against CosmArg III
Kant and Hume thought that only propositions
(statements) can be necessary. They explained
necessity as: A claim is necessary if its denial entails
a contradiction.
Find examples! If that was true all necessary
statements would belong to a certain class of
statement which we already know! Which?
Does this explanation make sense? Can you see
how it seriously damages CosmArg III?
General Considerations
Even if we accept the three arguments as valid and
sound – do they really prove the existence of God?
What kind of God?
Try to find out and to describe: What was Aquinas‘
aim with his proofs? Did he really want to prove
God‘s existence? When explaining his aim rely on
what Aquinas understood as via negativa!
Do we need an Explanation?
Russell famously criticised CosmArg on a very basic
level: He just denied that there is any need (or that
any need must be felt) to look for an explanation of
the universe.
Describe what this position entails! How is it
powerful against CosmArg?
What then in the end should be said about the
value of CosmArg? For whom do they certainly have
a great value?