Introducing
Your new presentation assistant.
Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.
Trending searches
Aquinas rejects that cause and effect or motion and change can go back to infinity because without a first mover there would be no movement in the first place. The first mover/ cause has to be a being that does not need a cause itself.
Mackie challenged Liebniz- principle of sufficient reason, he said 'How do we know everything much have a sufficient reason? How can there be a necessary being which contains its own sufficient reason?'
William of Ockham- Causes can be originating rather than conserving (mother & child) The experience of cause and effect may just be a result of out current ignorance
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle- universe could have been a spontaneous event
Open Universe- Idea that the universe emerged spontaneously, just as atomic particles can appear in a vacuum. Modern quantum theory rejects 'nothing can come from nothing'
Kant examined the argument of the existence of a supreme being as a first cause of the universe.
Kant argued that the idea of every event having a cause, a first cause only applied to the world of sense experience. It cannot apply to something we have no experienced Kant did not accept any justification for the concluion that God caused the universe to begin. Kant would not accept it as a valued to extend the knowledge we do pressed to questions that are beyond our experience. God would be a being outside space and time as we understand it.
The First Way- The First Mover
1. Nothing can move itself
2. If every object in motion had a mover then the first object in motion needed a mover
3. Movement cannot go on for infinity
4. This first mover is the unmoved mover, called God
The Second Way- The Uncaused Cause
1. There exists things that are caused (created) by other things
2. Nothing can be the cause of itself (nothing can create itself)
3. There cannot be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist
4. Therefore, there must be an uncaused first cause called God
The Third Way- Contingent and Necessary Objects
1. Contingent beings are caused
2. Not every being can be contingent
3. There must exist a being which is neccessary to cause contingent beings
4. This necessary being is God
Potentiality is the inherit capability for a thing to change or move. E.g. The acorn has the potentiality to become a tree.
Actuality is the reality at that moment, A new state is brought about in the thing. E.g. The acorn has become the mature tree.
Aquinas though that God could be found in two ways: revelation where God reveals himself to us and reason where we use our brains and logic to work him out and anyone can do it and in special ways like dreams, prayers being answered and near death experiences.
Aquinas did not accept that the statement 'God exists' is self evident. He states that it is a proposition that needs to be demonstrated.
Aquinas developed 'Five Ways' to prove the existence of God and he based his arguments on what could be observed. His observations included that in the universe even inanimate objects move and change.
Argued that the mistake humans make is to allow imagination connect between cause and effect.
Argued that Aquinas made an error when he observed cause and effect around him and the existence of the universe. Hume said to join those two events together when they are in fact two separate events
He argued 'How can anything that exists from eternity have a cause, since that relation implies a priority in time and in the beginning of existence'
Even if the universe did begin Hume said it does not mean that anything caused it to come into existence
Hume argued that we do not have a direct experience of the creation of the universe so we cannot speak so meaningful about the creation of the universe.
Lastly he did not believe that there was sufficient evidence to prove the cause of the universe or even if the universe was caused.
Those who do not agree or believe in God will be less likely to believe that God created the universe
Davies argued that the cosmological argument cannot stand alone as a proof for God's existence. It would have to be supported by other evidence like the design argument.
Bertrand Russell
Rejected the idea of contingency and that there was a necessary being, God. God as a necessary being would have to be in a special category of his own.
Just because humans have mothers it does not mean the universe has to have a mother
The universe does not have to have had a beginning, it could have always been there, it may just a brute fact
"I should say that the universe is just there, and that's all'
For a change from potentiality to actuality to come about an external influence is needed. This external influence needs to have achieved actuality. A thing cannot initiate itself (create one self) because this would need to be a potentiality and an actuality which is a contradiction.
Some philosophers argue that even if there was a first cause universe, there is no proof it is God of classical theism, the first cause can be anything. Hume said that it could be a material.
The universe may have had a beginning but there is no reason that the beginning was caused by God
The Hired Cab-
If everything needs a cause, what caused God?
Steady State Theory
Until recently scientists accepted that energy cannot be created or destroyed
Therefore it was thought that the universe will always weigh the same, the energy is simply redistributed
The universe should therefore look the same from any point in time, it is a steady state
The universe has always existed
Changes in the universe are just reorganization of energy
Early 20th century theory
Contraditions to temporal arguments but not with non temporal arguments like Leibniz. Bertrand Russell's are similar
Big Bang Theory
The Big Bang theory is a challenge to the cosmological a argument only if it is accepted as a rival theory to the argument. If the Big Bang is said to be a spontaneous event without reason or cause then Aquinas's assumption that God is the mover and cause of the universe is undermined.
If it is accepted that there must be a reason why the Big Bang happened and that once the universe began to evolve there could have been something or someone that sustained the universe ensuring it developed and continued, the Big Bang theory can give support to the belief in God of classical theism
Aristotle believed that all movement depends on there being a mover
This type of movement wasn't just transporting to another destination it includes change such a growth.
Aristotle argues that behind every movement there must be a chaing of events that brought about that movement and there was a common source so in other words someone or something was responsible for the beginning of everything.
Aristotle argues that there must have been an 'unmoved mover' who is the ultimate cause of the universe because if there was no ultimate cause to being the chain of causes and effects then there would be no chain at all, nothing would have came into existence, Aristotle called this unmoved mover the Prime Mover.
The cosmological argument seeks to prove the existence of God based on the beginning of the universe
The argument focuses on the causes that lead to the existence of things. The argument can answer questions like
How did the universe begin?
Why was the universe created?
Who created the universe?
The prime mover causes the movement of other things; not as an efficient cause but as a final cause.
Aristotle believes the Prime Mover is God.
Aristotle argues that:
God did not create the universe
God did not sustain the universe
God did not act in the universe
God has no interest in the universe
Aristotle considered that God being supremely perfect would have no interest in the universe. Instead God thinks about and contemplates his own nature and since God is supremely perfect this would make God supremely happy.
Aristotle went onto say that the universe is in space and time but God is outside of it and God is spaceless, timeless and radically different from anything else in the universe.
If God exists it is highly probable that he invented the universe- What else would he do?
If is easier to conceive of an infinite and uncaused God than an infinite and uncaused universe
This is an inductive argument- Makes Gods existence probable
Temporal Arguments
The universe must have a beginning therefore needs a first cause and this argument is associated with time.
Aquinas- Belief God is Prime Mover/ God is the first cause and necessary being
The Kalam Argument- Kalam is an Arabic term which means to 'argue or discuss'. Muslim Scholars developed it as a way of demonstrating God's existence. It is the argument that everything had has a beginning has a cause. The universe has a beginning therefore had a cause. Nothing can cause itself so the cause has to be distinct from the effect. Therefore the universe has to be cuased by a 'non physical entity' and that is God.
Non Temporal Arguments
The universe may always have existed but still needs an explanation for it. Leibniz- 'The Principle of Sufficient Reason' He believed that even if the universe did not have a definite beginning there had to be a reason behind it. This is known as the principle of sufficient reason. He agrees with Aquinas that everything must have a reason. Also however Science shows that there is an 'intricate interrelation of events behind things happening. To say the universe has no cause is to reject this principle.
This view is purely subject which is one criticism of Swinburne
Some philosophers argue that even if there was a first cause of the universe, there is no proof that it is the God of classical theism
one of the major objections to the argument is the suggestion that infinity is impossible and that the universe had a beginning. They argued that it did have a beginning but said God is infinite which is contradictory
Supports for the argument point out that God is unique and that the laws of nature do not apply to God.
Davies made the point that the Cosmological Argument isn't enough evidence of God's existence but it could be more convincing along with other ideas like the design argument
Lastly it is all a matter of faith, it may be that the argument supports what the individual already believes and will not convert a non believer into accepting God's existence
The cosmological argument is also known as the 'First Cause' argument
It comes to the conclusion that God exists from an a posteriori premise
It is based on this argument because of what can be seen in the world and the universe.
The starting point of the argument is observation of out world
The observations show things that move and change
Things are caused to happen as the result of how actions affect them
From observations we can see that things come into existence and then cease to exist
However we do not live in an empty universe as there is always something existing in our world, there isn't just nothing
The cosmological argument seeks to prove that the universe and everything that is within the universe has a cause, the cause is God.
The Cosmological Argument