From The Student Room

TSR Wiki > Study Help > Subjects and Revision > Revision Notes > Philosophy > The Cosmological Argument

---

THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

Cosmological arguments (from the Greek ‘cosmos’ meaning ‘the universe’ and ‘logos’ meaning ‘knowledge’) for the existence of God attempt to answer the question “what was it then that determined something to exist rather than nothing?” (Hume), using a posteriori evidence about cause and effect to infer that God must have started the chain of events that makes up the universe – “in the beginning, God created the heavens and earth.” (Gen 1.1) The primary argument was set out by Aquinas (1225-1274) in ‘Summa Theologica’ as the third of his ‘five ways’ for the existence of God, and has since been developed by theologians such as Leibniz and Copleston.

Plato (428-348BCE) ‘Laws’ – primary (can move themselves and others) and secondary movers (can only be moved by others, ultimate source of change).Only souls can be primary movers, and so “it is the soul which controls heaven and earth.”

Aristotle (390-323BCE) ‘Metaphysics’ – everything has an efficient cause, “since nothing can come from nothing” (Hawking challenges this), chain of contingent events, ‘reductio ad absurdum’ couldn’t have gone on infinitely, all changes in the universe must come from an ultimate source, the ‘Unmoved Mover’, not reliant on anything else.

Classical Greek God very different to Christian God.

Aquinas (1225-1274) ‘Summa Theologica’ – 1st way – kinetological (motion). 2nd way – aetological (causation). Assumes an infinite regress is impossible (Nielsen – “an infinite series isn’t a long or even a very, very long finite series” wouldn’t need a first cause, Mackie’s hooks). 3rd way – cosmological, contingent beings come into and out of existence, must have been a time when nothing existed (“if all things were merely possible, eventually nothing would exist”) but things do exist, so there must be a necessary being which created and sustains contingent beings. Mackie – if the contingent things overlap, there is no need for a contingent being.

Lee – if God is something, then we can ask why he exists. If God is nothing, then he can’t be an agent that created the universe. Between the two is not a possible position.

Leibniz (1646-1716) – “nothing takes place without sufficient reason.” (monadology). If we follow the endless regression back to find the cause of the universe, we never come to a sufficient reason as everything has a cause. The sufficient reason for the universe must lie outside this series of contingencies – God.

Mackie challenges Leibniz, “How do we know everything must 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 our current ignorance.

Hume (1711-1776) – we have no experience of universes being made, can’t argue from causes within the universe to causes of the universe as a whole (logical jump). We never actually experience cause and effect, “it is something our minds impose upon our perception of the world as a result of our past experience.” Anscombe – this is unnecessarily sceptical.

Kant (1724-1804) – the idea of a ‘necessary being’ is incoherent. We only have experience of causation within this phenomenal world of sense experience, can’t extent this to something extra spatiotemporally we haven’t experienced.

Copleston/ Russell 1948 radio debate -

Copleston – some things in the world are contingent, nothing is self-explanatory: the explanation of all things in the universe must be external to the universe.

Russell responded that only statements could be necessary, not beings. The universe is “a brute fact – it just is.” Also on a quantum level something can come from nothing. Quentin Smith, a philosopher of science, observed that “our universe exists without explanation…it exists non-necessarily, improbably, and causelessly.” However Copleston responded that if we assert that things just are, we are denying the reality of the problem.

Kalam Cosmological Argument – traditional Islamic argument, reformulated by Lane Craig “since everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence, and since the universe began to exist, we conclude, therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.” More deistic, God seems more separate – although Lane Craig argued it must be a personal, autonomous agent to want to bring the universe about.

Ockham’s razor – “entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.” Dawkins says this is to accept that the universe just is, whereas Swinburne says “God is simpler than anything we can imagine and gives a simple explanation for the system.”

Russell, Mill, and Dawkins – who made God? “They make the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress.” (Dawkins). However this is the compound question fallacy – “Who made God?” presupposes the prior question “Is God a created being?” But if God can be necessary, why can’t the universe?

Scientific theories – seems to rule out the creation of the world according to Genesis. Murphy – Gen shows the universe was created by God; creation was good, not literal.

Kenny – Newton’s 1st law of motion shows things can move themselves.

Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle – universe could’ve been a spontaneous event.

Steady State Theory (Hoyle and Bondi) – the universe is infinite in time and space, same throughout – no beginning. However red shift shows universe is in a state of constant change.

Multiverses - Atkins

Closed universe – Big Crunch

Oscillating universe – correlates with many Eastern religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and New Age, everything including the universe is reincarnated.

Open universe – accelerating outwards from Big Bang 13.6-13.8 billion years ago, “singularity.” It emerged spontaneously, just as atomic particles can appear in a vacuum, modern quantum theory rejects “nothing can come from nothing.” However scientists can’t trace beyond the 1st 10-43 seconds, quantum mechanics and relativity contradict and it is here that some posit God. However Coulson says it isn’t reasonable to have a “God of the gaps.” Hawking – limits when God could’ve created the universe.

Perhaps God is behind the whole thing, “upholding the universe by his word of power” (Hebrews).

Polkinghorne – the more science we understand, the closer we will come to a full understanding of God. Einstein “science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind.”

Comment

These notes are aimed at people studying for OCR A2 Philosophy.

Originally written by rejey on TSR Forums.