The Cosmological argument: OCR A notes

OCR ↗︎
Philosophy ↗︎
Question preparation ↓

AO1: Aquinas’ three ways

  • 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.

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 Im/possibility of a necessary being

  • Hume argues that necessity only applies to logical truths, such as “1+1=2”.
  • We can imagine anything existing not existing, so the idea of a necessary being is incoherent.
  • There is no contradiction in denying the existence of God.
  • Russell supports this by claiming necessity is a property of propositions, not things.
  • So the claim that “God exists” cannot be necessary in the way cosmological arguments require.

Counter

  • Copleston replies that this criticism targets the ontological argument, not cosmological arguments.
  • Anselm claimed God’s non-existence is logically impossible, but cosmological arguments use a different idea.
  • They claim God is metaphysically necessary as the explanation of contingent reality.
  • If the world is contingent, it requires a necessary explanation.
  • So God’s necessity is about explaining existence, not logical contradiction.

Evaluation

  • Hume’s challenge still succeeds because it undermines the move from necessity to God.
  • Even if a necessary being is coherent, it does not follow that it must be God.
  • The necessary being could be the universe itself or some fundamental physical reality.
  • Modern cosmology supports this possibility, with theories suggesting underlying structures like quantum fields.
  • These could explain existence without appealing to a divine being.
  • So Copleston’s response shifts the meaning of necessity but does not justify identifying the necessary being with God.
  • Cosmological arguments therefore fail to establish a specifically theistic conclusion.

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.

Question preparation

Revision paragraphs:

AO1: Aquinas’ three ways
AO2: Hume’s critique of the causal principle
AO2: The fallacy of composition
AO2: The im/possibility of an infinite regress
AO2: The Im/possibility of a necessary being
AO2: The Brute fact

Question types:

Questions could focus on:

  • Aquinas’ 1st way (motion)
  • Aquinas’ 2nd way (causation)
  • Aquinas’ 3rd way (contingency)
  • All three ways together
  • Hume’s criticisms of the cosmological argument

How the criticisms function:

  • The fallacy of composition and infinite regress issues attack all of the 3 ways. 
  • The critique of a necessary being only attacks the 3rd way.
  • The critique of the causal principle best attacks the 1st and 2nd ways (since the 3rd way is more about dependence relations rather than causal relations).

“the cosmo argument jumps without justification/explanation to the idea of a transcendent creator” – Discuss [40]

  • This is just asking whether the cosmological argument really manages to prove God, or whether it’s jumping to that explanation when there could be other explanations for the evidence it points to.
  • AO1: Aquinas’ three ways
  • Then, alternatives to the God explanation are:
  • AO2: Hume’s critique of the causal principle
    • suggests the universe has no cause.
  • AO2: The fallacy of composition
    • suggests the universe has no cause/mover/contingent status because it may not be like its parts.
  • AO2: The im/possibility of an infinite regress
    • a creator appears unnecessary if an infinite regress is possible.
  • AO2: The Brute fact
    • suggests the universe actually needs no explanation .

‘Hume’s criticisms of the cosmological argument succeed’ – Discuss [40]

  • AO1: Aquinas’ three ways – short (not the focus of the question).
  • And any of the following:
  • AO2: Hume’s critique of the causal principle
  • AO2: The fallacy of composition
  • AO2: The im/possibility of an infinite regress
  • AO2: The Im/possibility of a necessary being

Is Aquinas’ 3rd way more convincing than his first two ways? [40]

    • AO1: Aquinas’ three ways
    • AO2: The Im/possibility of a necessary being
      • Shows that the third way fails due to its reliance on the concept of a necessary being.
    • AO2: Hume’s critique of the causal principle
      • Shows the first two ways fail due to their reliance on the universe having a cause.
    • So, both arguments fail in different ways. 
    • AO2: The fallacy of composition
  • They both then also fail because they commit the fallacy of composition – in assuming that the whole universe must have a cause or mover or must be contingent.
  • So, none of the ways are more convincing than the others.

Weirdly worded questions:

Whether a priori or a posteriori is the more successful type of argument [40]
Or: Whether God’s existence best justified a posteriori / a priori [40]

  • This question requires that you judge whether the ontological argument (a priori) is better or worse than a posteriori arguments (teleo/cosmo).
  • You must do the ontological argument, and then at least one of teleo or cosmo – or both.
  • You will then have judged whether: 
  • They all succeed (So ontological better – because it tries to prove God’s existence for deductively certain – whereas cosmo/teleo are inductive arguments trying to show the evidence supports belief – but doesn’t prove it for certain). 
  • One type fails and the other succeeds (so the other type is more successful/convincing).
  • They all fail (equally unsuccessful/unconvincing).

I’d choose these:

  • AO1: Anselm (short), AO2: Kant (either of Kant’s critiques will do)
    • Kant is more of an upgraded critique than Gaunilo to be frank so an essay which leaves our Gaunilo feels more comprehensive than one which leaves out Kant.
  • AO2: Design arguments after Darwin
    • This is a nice one for this purpose because it covers a variety of design arguments and how they interact with the evolution issue, and then more contemporary issues.
  • AO1: Aquinas’ 3rd way (short), AO2: The fallacy of composition
    • Fallacy of composition targets all versions of the cosmological argument and touches on infinite regress issues and the universe needing no cause – so it’s the best for capturing the overall issues.
  • Or: AO2: The Im/possibility of a necessary being
    • This critique of a necessary being works very well because it attempts to attack both cosmological and ontological – but Copleston replies that it only undermines the ontological argument, not the cosmological, making the cosmological seem stronger. However in the end I evaluate that Hume succeeds, showing all varieties of argument to equally fail (though you could evaluate differently if desired).
  • This question would be answered best if you could highlight how the criticisms of each especially target their a priori or a posteriori nature. 
  • E.g., Kant shows the difficulty of proving existence through definition – which attacks a priori demonstrations of existence.
  • E.g., most criticisms of the design and cosmological arguments exploit its inductive a posteriori nature – by showing the evidence they point to could be explained by alternative conclusions (evolution, or the universe having no cause, or some scientific cause like necessary matter).

Do cosmological arguments contains logical fallacies [40] 

  • A very broad definition of a logical fallacy is a mistake in reasoning. 
  • The more standard definition of a fallacy is a particular type of mistake, which are then called formal or informal fallacies.
  • Without getting into that though, it would be simplest to treat this as a question about whether the criticisms highlight flaws in the reasoning of the argument. Not just providing evidence against it:
  • AO1: Aquinas’ three ways
  • Then: all of Hume’s critiques aim to show that cosmological arguments make logical errors of varying types:
  • AO2: Hume’s critique of the causal principle
  • Assuming the causal principle is true.
  • AO2: The fallacy of composition
  • Assuming that what’s true of the parts is true of the whole (composition fallacy) or that an abstract entity like a series must have a cause (reification fallacy).
  • AO2: The im/possibility of an infinite regress
  • Assuming an infinite regress is impossible.
  • AO2: The Im/possibility of a necessary being
  • Assuming the idea of a necessary being is logically coherent.