The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

strengths/weaknesses of the cosmological argument...

anyone? :smile:
Reply 1
Avatar for Malsy
Malsy
18
everything that is caused in this world is caused by someone and therefore 'somone' must have been a first cause for the universe
Criticisms of Aquinas' argument:

Quantum Physics - things don't all have a cause
Hume - we can have no knowledge of cause, it's all just constant conjunction and inference
Temporal Interpretation - there was a first cause, not necessarily still a God
Infinite regress is logically possible
fallacy of composition - every human has a mother, therefore there is a mother of all humans
Reply 3
Avatar for zzzzzoe
zzzzzoe
11
in addition to those ^
infinite regress still needs a "motive force" J.L Mackie says
the way of motion - dead men cant kill - Anthony Kenny

strengths:
some scientific theories suggest finite universe - cause could be god
if it reduces the number of unanswered questions then its fine
if it doesnt inhibit furhter scientific research then its fine
Reply 4
Avatar for gabriele
gabriele
OP
5
zzzzzoe
in addition to those ^
infinite regress still needs a "motive force" J.L Mackie says
the way of motion - dead men cant kill - Anthony Kenny

strengths:
some scientific theories suggest finite universe - cause could be god
if it reduces the number of unanswered questions then its fine
if it doesnt inhibit furhter scientific research then its fine



the "if it doesnt have further scientific research" bit; is this because it is an a priori argument that doesn't involve outside experience (empiracle or however it is spelt) so can't br proved wrong? Or can be proved wrong by scientific evidence such as the big bang?
(or have I got that backwards?)
Weakness- The argument makes a leap of faith from necessary cause to God, Bertrand Russell claimed that the universe itself could be simply a "brute fact"

Criticism of weakness- Coppleston claimed that Russel was running away from the discussion, it is contrary to human nature to simply accept things as they are, "if one refuses to sit at the chessboard, then one cannot of course be checkmated"
gabriele
the "if it doesnt have further scientific research" bit; is this because it is an a priori argument that doesn't involve outside experience (empiracle or however it is spelt) so can't br proved wrong? Or can be proved wrong by scientific evidence such as the big bang?
(or have I got that backwards?)


that's the wrong way around. The Cosmological argument is an a posteriori argument based on empirical observations of cause and effect.
Reply 7
Avatar for gabriele
gabriele
OP
5
samaleyo
that's the wrong way around. The Cosmological argument is an a posteriori argument based on empirical observations of cause and effect.


*******s, knew it.
I meant there's no experiencial evidence to the cosmo. argument as we have no experience of the first cause?
Reply 8
Avatar for zzzzzoe
zzzzzoe
11
gabriele
the "if it doesnt have further scientific research" bit; is this because it is an a priori argument that doesn't involve outside experience (empiracle or however it is spelt) so can't br proved wrong? Or can be proved wrong by scientific evidence such as the big bang?
(or have I got that backwards?)

well its an aposteriori argument but its difficult to falsify, even with the big bang! you cant verify it or falsify (disprove) it
gabriele
*******s, knew it.
I meant there's no experiencial evidence to the cosmo. argument as we have no experience of the first cause?


yea that is true, but that is why it is an inductive argument and not a deductive argument.
Aquinas was inferring from experience of things having causes to the conclusion that we cannot experience; that there was a first uncaused cause.

I hope that answers your question?
Reply 10
Avatar for gabriele
gabriele
OP
5
Indeedy it does, thanks, it's all on my big spider diagram now :smile:
Hooray for spider diagrams!

=D
Reply 12
Avatar for gabriele
gabriele
OP
5
haha, and bring on the highlighters...
what fun revision is!
Reply 13
Avatar for gabriele
gabriele
OP
5
samaleyo
yea that is true, but that is why it is an inductive argument and not a deductive argument.
Aquinas was inferring from experience of things having causes to the conclusion that we cannot experience; that there was a first uncaused cause.

I hope that answers your question?


Could it be argued that because the cosmological argument can't be either varified or falsified qualify it to belong under the verfication principle; that it is nonsense because it can't be proved?
Reply 14
Avatar for Malsy
Malsy
18
I wouldn't call things nonsence just because they cant be proved....people that dont agree with the abortion limit because they believe all foetus' can survive isnt nonssence just because it cant be proved although some babies can survive :biggrin:
gabriele
Could it be argued that because the cosmological argument can't be either varified or falsified qualify it to belong under the verfication principle; that it is nonsense because it can't be proved?


hmm... I personally wouldn't use verification or falsification in criticising the cosmological argument.

The claim that God exists might be said to be unfalsifiable because no evidence would ever count against it, for some people, but it is possible to disprove the cosmological argument by gathering evidence to prove either that the universe is infinitely old, or showing the existence of a first cause that isn't God.

I think it could be argued, but there are safer criticisms to go with just to play it safe.:wink:

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you