Cosmological argument: Edexcel B grade notes

Edexcel
Philosophy

The Kalam cosmological argument focuses on the beginning of the universe and uses temporal causation.
Temporal causation is a sequence where effects happen over time and do not depend on their cause continuing to exist.
Each cause can produce new effects on its own.
W. L. Craig developed this argument from Islamic philosophy.
P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
P2. The universe began to exist.
C1. So, the universe has a cause of its existence.
Craig argues science cannot explain the origin of the universe, so a personal explanation is needed.
This means an intelligent mind caused the universe.
The cause must be powerful enough to create the universe from nothing.
It must be outside time and space, since these began with the universe.
A timeless being would not need a cause, so this fits the idea of God.

Aquinas’ 1st way from motion.
By motion Aquinas means change.
P1. We observe motion.
P2. Things cannot move themselves.
C1. So, whatever moves is moved by something else.
P3. Without a first mover, there would be no motion now.
C2. So, there must be a first unmoved mover, which we call God.
Aquinas’ 2nd way from causation.
P1. We observe causation.
P2. Nothing can cause itself.
P3. Causes form a chain.
P4. If a cause does not exist, its effect does not exist.
C1. So, there must be a first uncaused cause, which we call God.
Aquinas’ 3rd way from contingency.
P1. We observe contingent beings.
P2. If something can not exist, then at some time it does not exist.
C1. If everything were contingent, there would have been a time when nothing existed.
P3. If nothing existed, nothing could exist now.
C2. So, there must be a necessary being, which we call God.

Cosmological arguments are a posteriori, meaning based on observation.
For example, Aquinas looks at motion, causation and contingency in the world.
They are inductive, so their premises support the conclusion but do not prove it.
This means they cannot give certainty, only show what is likely.
They are also defeasible, so new evidence could challenge them.
These arguments often use principles such as the Principle of Sufficient Reason, that everything has an explanation, and the causal principle, that everything caused has a cause.
These ideas come from experience, since we see things have causes.
But applying them to the whole universe is not straightforward.
The move from these principles to God involves extra assumptions.
So the argument does not prove God, but only makes God more likely.

The fallacy of composition
Weakness: The fallacy of composition attacks the assumption that the universe as a whole requires an explanation just because its parts do.
Strength: Cosmological arguments start with what we observe and don’t even mention the universe as a whole, which avoids fallacious part to whole reasoning.
The im/possibility of an infinite regress
Strength: An infinite regress may lead to paradoxes regarding infinite library examples and traversing an infinite to get to the current moment.
Weakness: Scientific models and the lack of empirical evidence undermine claims that an infinite regress is impossible, weakening philosophical arguments against it.
The brute fact
Weakness: The possibility of brute facts suggests that not everything requires an explanation, challenging the principle of sufficient reason.
Strength: The consistent practice of seeking explanations in science and philosophy supports the idea that reality is intelligible and may have an ultimate explanation.
The Im/possibility of a necessary being
Weakness: The concept of a necessary being is criticised as logically incoherent, since anything that can be conceived to exist can also be conceived not to exist.
Strength: Cosmological arguments reference God’s necessity as metaphysical rather than logical, avoiding the ontological argument’s issue of thinking existence is a predicate.

Russell argues that what is true of parts is not always true of the whole.
Even if everything in the universe has a cause, it does not follow that the universe itself has a cause.
So the argument may commit the fallacy of composition, assuming the whole must be explained in the same way as its parts.

Counter

Copleston argues the argument does not depend on this mistake.
It focuses on a series of contingent things and claims the whole series still needs an explanation.
Even if each part is explained and the series is infinite, it cannot explain why the series exists at all.

Evaluation

This response is not convincing because it treats a series as if it were a separate thing.
Hume argues that explaining each part explains the whole collection.
A series is just a way of grouping parts in our thinking, not a real thing needing its own cause.
So it does not need a further explanation beyond its parts.
If each part is explained, the series is fully explained.
This weakens the cosmological argument, because it shows no extra explanation is needed.

Hume argues that necessity only applies to logical truths, like “1+1=2”.
We can imagine anything not existing, so there is no contradiction in denying God’s existence.
This means the idea of a necessary being does not make sense.
Russell agrees, saying necessity applies to statements, not real things.

Counter

Copleston argues this misunderstands cosmological arguments.
They do not claim God is logically necessary, but that God is needed to explain the world.
If the universe is contingent, it must have an explanation.
So necessity here means being required as an explanation, not logically unavoidable.

Evaluation

Hume’s argument is still more convincing.
Even if we accept that a necessary being could exist, there is no clear reason to think this must be God.
The necessary being could instead be the universe itself or some basic physical reality.
Modern science supports this possibility, with some theories suggesting underlying structures like quantum fields which could be necessary.
These could explain why anything exists without appealing to God.
So the argument fails to justify belief in a divine necessary being.

Counter

Copleston argues we cannot rule out a cause of the universe.
Science usually looks for explanations, so it assumes things have causes.
He says quantum uncertainty may show limits in our knowledge, not that events are truly uncaused.
Also, quantum events still depend on physical systems, so they cannot show how the universe itself could have no cause.

Evaluation

Russell’s view is stronger because it shows uncaused events are at least possible.
Many scientists think quantum events are genuinely random, not just unknown to us.
If causeless events can exist, then the universe could also be causeless.
This does not prove there is no cause, but it shows we are not forced to accept one.
So the idea that everything must have an explanation is uncertain.
God becomes just one possible explanation rather than a necessary one.