For AO1 you need to know:
- Inductive proofs & ‘a posteriori’
- Aquinas’ 3 ways
- The Kalam
- Hume’s criticisms
- Alternative scientific explanations e.g. the big bang theory
For AO2 you need to be able to debate:
- Whether inductive arguments for God are persuasive
- The extent to which the Kalam cosmological argument is convincing
- The effectiveness of the cosmological argument for God’s existence
- Whether cosmological arguments for God are persuasive in the 21st century
- The effectiveness of the challenges to the cosmological argument
- Whether scientific explanations are more persuasive than philosophical explanations for the universe’s existence
AO1: Inductive proofs & a posteriori Eduqas
- Cosmological and design arguments are a posteriori, meaning they are based on experience.
- Aquinas appeals to observation of motion, causation and contingency, while Paley points to purpose and complexity in nature.
- They are typically inductive, meaning the premises can be true while the conclusion is still false.
- The premises give supporting evidence but do not guarantee the conclusion.
- These arguments are linked to empiricism, which claims knowledge comes from experience.
- So, inductive arguments are not certain, but aim to show what we have most reason to believe based on the evidence.
- They are also defeasible, meaning new evidence could change or overturn the conclusion.
- So they can be challenged by rejecting the premises or denying the conclusion follows.
- Such arguments can rely on explanatory principles such as Leibniz’s Principle of Sufficient Reason (everything has an explanation) or Aquinas’ causal principle (whatever is caused has a cause).
- These are supported by experience, since we regularly observe causes and explanations.
- However, applying them to the whole universe and inferring God requires further assumptions.
- So the argument remains inductive even if it includes necessary-looking premises.
- There are also varieties of induction, such as analogical reasoning, which design arguments often rely on.
- Since we cannot observe the cause of natural complexity directly, we compare it to human design.
- This inductively supports the conclusion that the world is likely designed.
AO1: Aquinas’ three ways (Long) Eduqas
- Cosmological arguments are a posteriori, meaning based on experience.
- E.g., Aquinas’ ways are based on observation of motion, causation and contingency in the world.
- They are typically inductive, meaning their premises could be true yet their conclusion false.
- Their premises provide supporting evidence, but do not logically guarantee the conclusion.
- Such arguments are typically made by empiricists, who hold that knowledge comes from experience.
- If successful, they show what we currently have most reason to believe based on the available evidence.
- Aquinas’ 1st way from motion
- By motion Aquinas means change, understood as the actualisation of a potential.
- P1. We observe motion (the actualisation of a potential).
- P2. Things cannot move themselves.
- C1. So, whatever is in motion must be moved by something already actual.
- P3. If there were no first mover, there would be no motion now.
- C2. Therefore, motion must come from a first unmoved mover (pure actuality), which we call God.
- Aquinas’ 2nd way from atemporal causation
- P1. We observe efficient causation.
- P2. Nothing can cause itself.
- P3. Causes form an ordered series from first cause to effect.
- P4. If a cause does not exist, its effect does not exist.
- C1. So, present causation must depend on a first uncaused cause, which we call God.
- Sustaining causation.
- Aquinas means a present, ongoing dependence rather than a first cause in time.
- Secondary causes depend on something more fundamental to sustain their causal power.
- For example, a hand moving a stick which moves a stone all act together, but the hand is primary.
- So, if there were no primary cause, there would be no causation or motion now.
- Aquinas’ 3rd way from contingency.
- P1. We observe contingent beings (things that can fail to exist).
- 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 begin to exist.
- C2. So, there must be a necessary being, which we call God.
AO1: The Kalam cosmological argument from temporal causation
- The Kalam cosmological argument focuses on the coming into being of the universe, so it explicitly involves temporal causation.
- Temporal (‘per accidens’ / ‘in fieri’) causation is a horizontal sequence where causes bring about effects at different times.
- The continued existence of the effect does not depend on the continued existence of the cause.
- Each member of the sequence has its own causal power to produce further effects.
- So the chain can continue regardless of whether earlier causes still exist.
- For example, a father can create a son independently of his own father, who can then create their own son.
- W. L. Craig revived this argument in the 20th century, naming it ‘Kalam’ after its origins in 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 then argues this cause must be God.
- Scientific explanations apply within the universe and cannot explain its origin.
- So the cause must be a personal explanation, an intelligent mind.
- This cause must be able to create the universe from nothing, so it is omnipotent.
- It must also be timeless and non-spatial, since time and space began with the universe.
- A timeless being would be eternal and uncaused, so it does not contradict P1.
- These features match the concept of God.
- The first premise is supported by the idea that something cannot come from nothing.
- The second is supported by arguments against an infinite regress and by scientific evidence such as the Big Bang.
AO2: Hume’s critique of the causal principle
- Hume challenges the causal principle assumed by cosmological arguments.
- He argues it is not analytically true, since we can coherently conceive of an uncaused event without contradiction.
- So it cannot be established through logic.
- Attempts to justify it through experience also fail, because observing causes within the universe does not justify claims about the universe’s origin.
- The only relevant evidence would be observing the universe being created.
- So the causal principle lacks both logical and empirical support.
Counter
- Aquinas’ account of sustaining causation avoids this problem.
- We observe secondary causes which do not have independent causal power.
- Their ability to cause depends on something else sustaining them.
- This creates a hierarchy where causal power must ultimately come from a primary cause.
- A secondary cause without a sustaining cause would be incoherent, since it would have no source of causal power.
- So a causal principle based on sustaining causation can be treated as necessarily true.
Evaluation
- The idea of sustaining causation is not supported by modern science and rests on a controversial metaphysical assumption.
- It claims that causation requires ongoing support from a primary cause, rather than being explained by prior events alone.
- However, physics does not require this type of explanation.
- Theories such as Guth’s inflation model and Krauss’ account of a universe from “nothing” suggest the universe may not need a cause in the traditional sense.
- These accounts challenge the idea that causation must always apply.
- This supports Hume’s view that the universe’s origin could be a unique kind of event.
- So the causal principle is not necessary, and cosmological arguments fail to establish God as its cause.
AO2: The fallacy of composition
- Bertrand Russell argues that what is true of parts need not be true of the whole.
- Just because every human has a mother does not mean the human race has a mother.
- Likewise, even if parts of the universe have causes or are contingent, it does not follow that the universe itself has such an explanation.
- So cosmological arguments risk committing a fallacy of composition.
Counter
- Copleston replies that cosmological arguments do not infer from parts to whole.
- They begin from observed contingent things and argue that the series they form requires explanation.
- Feser notes Aquinas does not refer to the universe as a whole.
- A series of contingent beings cannot be necessary, even if infinite.
- So it still requires an external explanation.
Evaluation
- This response fails because it treats a series as if it were a concrete thing needing its own explanation.
- This is a reification fallacy.
- Hume illustrates this with a collection of particles.
- If each particle is explained, the whole collection is explained.
- There is no extra entity beyond the parts that needs further explanation.
- The same applies to a series of contingent beings.
- A series is just a mental grouping of individual events, not something over and above them.
- In an infinite series, each part can be explained by prior parts.
- So the entire series is explained without needing an external cause.
- Copleston’s argument wrongly assumes the series needs an explanation in itself, aside from its parts.
AO2: The im/possibility of an infinite regress
- Aquinas and Leibniz allow for an infinite regress, arguing that even an infinite series of causes or contingent beings still requires explanation in a primary cause or necessary being.
- Craig strengthens the argument by claiming an actual infinite is impossible.
- He uses examples like an infinite library, where half can equal the whole, creating paradoxes.
- He also argues an infinite past cannot be traversed, so the present could not have been reached.
Counter
- Hume argues there is no contradiction in an infinite regress.
- Scientific models support this possibility.
- Cyclic models suggest an eternal universe without a single infinite timeline, avoiding problems about traversing an infinite.
- Inflation theory proposes a quantum field generating universes, which may be necessary or a brute fact.
- If this exists outside time, then temporal causation and regress do not apply.
Evaluation
- Hume’s approach is more convincing because it respects the limits of philosophical reasoning.
- Craig’s arguments rely on intuitions about infinity and time that may not match physical reality.
- Scientific theories already challenge these intuitions, showing that concepts like time and space behave in unexpected ways.
- Einstein’s remark that time is “what clocks measure” reflects how unclear our understanding still is.
- If modern physics can describe models that avoid these paradoxes, then Craig’s claims lose force.
- Philosophy alone cannot decide what is possible in the physical world.
- So without empirical evidence, the claim that an infinite regress is impossible remains unproven.
AO2: The Brute fact
- Russell argues that quantum mechanics shows some events may be uncaused.
- Copleston replies that this depends on interpretation, but Russell maintains uncaused events are scientifically conceivable.
- So, we can doubt that all reality must have a cause.
- He concludes the universe could be a brute fact, “just there, and that’s all”.
- This introduces a third option beyond Copleston’s dilemma, since reality may have no explanation at all.
Counter
- Copleston argues we cannot rule out an ultimate explanation.
- Science and philosophy both assume that events have causes or reasons.
- He interprets quantum indeterminacy as showing limits in knowledge, not reality itself.
- Even if we can only describe events probabilistically, there may still be underlying causes.
- Quantum events also depend on physical systems, so they do not show that the universe itself is uncaused.
- So, an ultimate explanation is still required.
Evaluation
- Russell’s argument is more convincing because it shows causeless events are at least possible.
- Most physicists interpret quantum uncertainty as objective, not just a limit of knowledge.
- So Copleston’s epistemological response is not well supported.
- If some events can be uncaused, it is reasonable to think the universe could also be uncaused, even if in a different way.
- This does not prove the universe is a brute fact, but it removes the necessity of an explanation.
- The principle of sufficient reason therefore becomes an assumption rather than a truth.
- So God is only one possible explanation among others, and not rationally required.