The Cosmological Argument

• Also known as ‘The First Cause Argument’

• Unlike the Ontological Argument, it derives the conclusion from a posteriori premise

• The argument is an a posteriori argument because it is based on what can be seen in the world and the universe

• The argument is based on the belief that there is a first cause behind the existence of the universe (the cosmos)

• The argument claims that the universe cannot account for it’s own existence and so this argument seeks causes that have their solution in the existence of a god.

• It’s an argument that has a long history

• In Timaeus, Plato says ‘that every created thing must created by some cause’

• Aristotle shared his concept of the Prime Mover

• The most popular form is presented by Aquinas in the first three of his ‘Five Ways’

• Descartes and Leibniz support it too

• Modern philosophers are Craig and Swinburne

• Main opponents- Hume and Kant

• The basic cosmological argument is based on contingency

• A contingency is something that may or may not happen, an event or condition depends on something else which may or may not happen. Things do not contain the reason for their own existence but depend on external causes

• So, the basic CA is based on contingency and states:-

Things come into existence because something has caused them to happen

Things are caused to exist because they do not have to exist

There is a chain of causes going back to the beginning of time

Time began with the creation of the universe

There must have been a first cause, which brought the universe into existence

This first cause must have necessary existence to cause the contingent universe

Only God can have necessary existenceTherefore God is the first cause of the

contingent universe’s existence

• The CA has taken many forms and been presented in many ways

• In each form the argument focuses on the causes that lead to the existence of things

• The argument tries to answer the questions

1. How did the universe begin?

2. Why was the universe created?

3. Who created the universe?

St. Thomas Aquinas 1225-1274

• Very influential philosopher and theologian• Highly regarded by Roman Catholics• Lived in a time when a renewed interest in

Aristotle coincided with a view that philosophy could be useful to Christian theology to demonstrate the reasonableness of faith

• Aquinas attempted to apply the philosophy of Aristotle to Christianity

• The philosophy of Aquinas- (Thomism)

• Wrote loads and in Summa Theologica (4000 pages)- devoted only two pages to his arguments for the existence of God

• Their compact form made them popular

• Became known as the Five Ways

The Five Ways

1. The Unmoved Mover (motion or change)

2. The Uncaused Causer (cause)

3. Possibility and Necessity (contingency)

4. Goodness, Truth and Nobility

5. Teleological

(All a posteriori- first three ways different variations fo the CA)

The First Way

• The Unchanged Changer/the Prime Mover

• Based on motion

• Aquinas speaking of motion in the broadest sense, i.e. movement from one place to another, also movement in the sense of change of quality or quantity

• An object only moved when an external force was applied to it

• This chain of movements or changes cannot go back to infinity

• There must have been a first, or prime, mover which itself was unmoved

• Aquinas argued the Prime Mover is God

• Read and learn his example of the wood

• Expressed formally:Everything that is in motion (change) is

moved (changed) by something elseInfinite regress is impossibleTherefore there must be a first mover

(changer)

• Aquinas not arguing that the Universe necessarily had a beginning. He thought it did but he said you could not reason that out as it was revealed doctrine

• His emphasis was on dependency

• This dependency argument reappeared in the 20th century with Swinburne

• Christian theology has always taught that God sustains the universe

• i.e. if God ceased to exist then the universe would also cease to exist

• Therefore there must be an initiator of the change whose continued existence is dependent upon

The Second Way

• The Uncaused Causer (the First Cause Argument)

• This follows a similar line of argument but replaces motion (change) with cause:-

»Every effect has a cause»Infinite regress is impossible

therefore there must be a first cause

• Aquinas identified a series of causes and effects in the universe

• He observed that nothing could be the cause of itself as this would mean that it would have had to exist before it existed

• This would be a logical impossibility

• He rejected an infinite series of causes and said there must have been a first, uncaused, cause.

• This first cause started the chain of causes that have caused all events to happen

• This first cause was God

• One of the differences between the two ways is that in the first attention is centred on the fact that things are acted upon whereas in the second the attention is on the things doing the acting upon

The Third Way

• Possibility and Necessity (contingency)

• For Aquinas anything that had a property was referred to as a ‘being’

• The world is full of contingent beings

• Beings that have a beginning and an end

• If all beings were contingent, then at one time nothing would have existed

• This is because there would have been a time prior to the coming into existence of contingent beings

• If that is the case, then nothing would be able to come into existence as everything contingent has a prior cause

• Thus there must be at least one being which cannot be contingent

• There must exist a necessary being

• Aquinas calls this God

• Expressed formally:-

»Contingent beings exist

»Because they exist, then a necessary being must exist

»That necessary being = God

• He concluded that if God did not exist then nothing would exist

Gottfried Leibniz’s Argument1646-1716

• The Principle of Sufficient Reason

• Leibniz accepted the CA because he believed that there had to be a ‘sufficient reason’ for the universe exist

• He did not accept that it was uncaused

• Hence he rejected an infinite universe theory

David Hume’s Challenge(1711-1776)

• Hume believed that all knowledge comes from our sense experience

• Hume concluded that humans think that they know a great deal more about the external world than is warranted

• Humans make the mistake of allowing imagination to make a connection between cause and effect

• We observe a conjunction of events but they are in fact two separate events occurring at two separate times

• The mind has a habit of making a connection between the two events, this is called induction

• (Induction = a method of reasoning where a conclusion is reached by linking observation of cause and effect to draw conclusion)

• In Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779), he said

» It is incorrect to move from stating that everything in the universe has a cause to the universe itself having a cause

» Challenged the idea that the universe has a beginning. Why can it not go back to infinity?

» Argues that even if accept that the universe must have a cause there’s no solid ground for this cause to be the Christian god, e.g. it could be caused be a committee of divine beings.

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)

• Examined the argument of the existence of a supreme being as a first cause of the universe

• He argued the idea that every event must have a first cause only applied to the world of sense experience

• It cannot apply to something we have not experienced

• He did not accept any justification for the conclusion that God caused the universe to begin

• He would not accept it as valid to extend the knowledge we do possess to questions that transcend our experience

• God would be a causal being outside space and time as we understand it

• Therefore it would be impossible for people to have any knowledge of what God created or of God himself

The Radio Debate (1948)

• Between Frederick Copleston and Bertrand Russell

• Copleston = Jesuit priest and professor at Heythrop College

• Russell = British philosopher

• Copleston supported CA as evidence for the existence of God

• Russell opposed it

• Debate focused on ‘Principle of Sufficient Reason’

• Copleston said:»There are some things in the world

that do not have in themselves the reason or cause for their existence

»God is his own sufficient reason»God is not contingent

• Russell said:»He rejected the idea of contingency

and that there is a necessary being, God, on which all things depend

»God as a necessary being would have to be in a special category of his own, so where does this special category come from and why should such a category be accepted?

»A ‘necessary being’ has no meaning

• Copleston replied:»If Russell could talk of God in this

way, he understood the meaning of a necessary being

• Russell stated:»The universe does not have to have a

beginning. It could always have been there and that was a brute fact

• The two never agreed!

What you need to do now

Read

Read

Read

Read

Read

Read

Essay

a) Explain the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God (33)

b) ‘The Cosmological Argument is unconvincing.’ Discuss (17)

Date due: Monday April 24th

Essay

• The Teleological Argument

a) Explain the main arguments for design as presented by Aquinas and Paley. (33)

b) ‘Hume makes a more convincing case than Paley.’ Discuss. (17)

Timed essay: Tuesday 2 May lunch time