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.
- 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.
AO1: The Kalam cosmological argument from temporal causation
- The Kalam cosmological argument focuses on the beginning of the universe and uses temporal causation.
- Temporal causation is a sequence where causes produce effects over time.
- The effect does not depend on the continued existence of the cause.
- Each cause can produce new effects on its own.
- For example, a father can have a son, who can then have his own son.
- W. L. Craig developed this argument based on earlier 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 this cause is God.
- Science cannot explain the origin of the universe, so a personal explanation is needed.
- The cause must be powerful enough to create the universe from nothing.
- It must also be outside time and space, since these began with the universe.
- This fits the idea of God.
- The first premise is based on the idea that something cannot come from nothing.
- The second is supported by arguments against an infinite past and by the Big Bang theory.
AO2: Hume’s critique of the causal principle
- Cosmological arguments assume the causal principle, that every event has a cause.
- But Hume argues this is not certain.
- We can imagine an event happening without a cause, so it is not logically necessary.
- Also, observing causes in the world does not prove the universe itself has a cause.
- So there is no strong basis for the causal principle.
Counter
- Aquinas uses sustaining causation.
- Observed things are “secondary causes” that depend on something else for their causal power.
- This chain must end in a first cause with its own power.
- A cause with no cause would be contradictory on this view.
Evaluation
- This is unconvincing because sustaining causation is not supported by science.
- Physics explains events through prior states and laws without needing a continuing first cause.
- Theories like inflation suggest the universe could arise without added cause or energy.
- So there is no clear need for Aquinas’ idea.
- Hume is right that the causal principle may not apply to everything, so God is not required as an explanation.
AO2: The fallacy of composition
- 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.
AO2: The im/possibility of an infinite regress
- Aquinas and Leibniz argue that even if there is an infinite chain of causes, it still needs an explanation.
- Craig goes further and claims an infinite past is impossible.
- He argues this leads to paradoxes and that we could not reach the present if time were infinite.
Counter
- Hume argues there is no clear problem with an infinite regress.
- Some scientific ideas support this.
- Cyclic models suggest an endless universe, and inflation theory suggests a deeper structure that may not involve time in the usual way.
- So an infinite past may still be possible.
Evaluation
- Hume’s view is stronger because it fits better with science.
- Craig’s arguments depend on ideas about time and infinity that may not match reality.
- Modern physics shows that time and space are not simple or intuitive.
- So philosophical arguments alone are not enough to prove an infinite past is impossible.
- Without clear evidence, Craig’s argument is not convincing.
AO2: The Brute fact
- Russell argues that quantum mechanics suggests some events may be uncaused.
- So it is possible that not everything needs a cause.
- He concludes the universe could be a brute fact, “just there, and that’s all”.
- This challenges the idea that everything must have an explanation.
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.