The Cosmological argument B grade notes

OCR ↗︎
Philosophy ↗︎
Question preparation ↓

AO1: Aquinas’ 1st, 2nd & 3rd Ways

  • 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.

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.

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

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

“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.

‘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

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

  • AO1: Aquinas’ three ways
  • AO2: Hume’s critique of the causal principle
    • Shows the first two ways fail due to their reliance on the universe having a cause.
  • AO2: The fallacy of composition
    • They all fail because they commit the fallacy of composition – in assuming that the whole universe must have a cause or mover or must be contingent.
  • AO2: The im/possibility of an infinite regress
    • They all fail because of the possibility of an infinite regress – showing motion, causation or contingent dependency could extend back infinitely without therefore the need for a creator.

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.
  • 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.