Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hi everyone, I have literally left ALL my revision until now so I'm panicking a bit. Could someone please explain Cosmological Argument to me in detail, and also the Russell/Coplestone debate? My notes for the criticisms in the debate are particularly jumbled.

    THANK YOU SO MUCH!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Here's a part a essay I did on Aquinas' and Copleston's cosmological argument:

    http://rsisbest.blogspot.co.uk/2014/...estons-ca.html

    Got full marks, should help with your understanding, and getting the structure right on philo essays is really important too!

    Then you need to know 3 of Russell's main criticisms of Copleston:
    1) Critisized 'necessary being' - we can conceive of the world without a cause, therefore the statement 'the world needs a cause' cannot be a priori, which undermines Copleston's key premsie
    2) The cosmo. argument is limited by human experience/bias. The principle of causation is based on the fact that everything we've seen has a cause, but it's the fallacy of composition to assume that this also applies to the universe itself, as we haven't seen everything. e.g. we see all humans have mothers, but that doesn't mean we should say the universe has a mother, as this would be untrue.
    3) the universe exists as a 'brute fact', and we need to accept this without trying to provide an explanation. the cosmological argument exists as a result of us asking the question 'why does the universe exist?' but this is an invalid question, there isn't an explanation. we should adopt the approach of ockham's razor - that the simplest explanation is the correct one.

    hope this helps, good luck!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Hi
    Bit silly to leave it so late - but anyway

    The cosmological argument centers itself around the notion of cause and effect. You were created by your mum, who was her created by her mum and so forth. Aquinas argues that this chain of cause and effect must go all the way back to the first cause that is a neccesary cause. This is God and therfore it is a reasoned conclusion that God exists. The extension proposed by Copelston in the debate is to class God as the sufficent cause of all that exists (a quick google will come up with some more ideas on this!)

    As far as criticsms go the main one's will be Russell (i.e the debate) alongside David Hume and J.L Mackie. Hume argues that cause and effect is an illusion that dosen't actually exist, consider the analogy of the mythical bus that Hume uses to explain this thinking. Also, then consider the fallacy of composition from Hume that suggests that even if cause and effect was right it would only apply in human concept and could not be applied to a transcendent God. This is reffered to as the fallacy of composition. Finally, Hume also proposes that neither Aquinas nor Copleston produces a theory that avoids the pitfalls of logical specualtion. J.L Mackie proposes that infinite regression destroys the cosmological argument. Mackie argues that there does need be any first cause - thing can just infinitly regress for ever and ever - the chain of causes never ends!!

    You may also want to consider the Aristotleian roots of the argument and how this effects it's strength.

    Hope this helps - if you have any other questions just ask...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by quirksy)
    Here's a part a essay I did on Aquinas' and Copleston's cosmological argument:

    http://rsisbest.blogspot.co.uk/2014/...estons-ca.html

    Got full marks, should help with your understanding, and getting the structure right on philo essays is really important too!

    Then you need to know 3 of Russell's main criticisms of Copleston:
    1) Critisized 'necessary being' - we can conceive of the world without a cause, therefore the statement 'the world needs a cause' cannot be a priori, which undermines Copleston's key premsie
    2) The cosmo. argument is limited by human experience/bias. The principle of causation is based on the fact that everything we've seen has a cause, but it's the fallacy of composition to assume that this also applies to the universe itself, as we haven't seen everything. e.g. we see all humans have mothers, but that doesn't mean we should say the universe has a mother, as this would be untrue.
    3) the universe exists as a 'brute fact', and we need to accept this without trying to provide an explanation. the cosmological argument exists as a result of us asking the question 'why does the universe exist?' but this is an invalid question, there isn't an explanation. we should adopt the approach of ockham's razor - that the simplest explanation is the correct one.

    hope this helps, good luck!
    Thank you SO much, I really appreciate your help! Probably gonna be an all nighter tonight haha. Do you reckon something on Cosmo is coming up? (Assuming you're taking OCR Philo/Ethics on Tuesday 13th!)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BrunoRussell)
    Hi
    Bit silly to leave it so late - but anyway

    The cosmological argument centers itself around the notion of cause and effect. You were created by your mum, who was her created by her mum and so forth. Aquinas argues that this chain of cause and effect must go all the way back to the first cause that is a neccesary cause. This is God and therfore it is a reasoned conclusion that God exists. The extension proposed by Copelston in the debate is to class God as the sufficent cause of all that exists (a quick google will come up with some more ideas on this!)

    As far as criticsms go the main one's will be Russell (i.e the debate) alongside David Hume and J.L Mackie. Hume argues that cause and effect is an illusion that dosen't actually exist, consider the analogy of the mythical bus that Hume uses to explain this thinking. Also, then consider the fallacy of composition from Hume that suggests that even if cause and effect was right it would only apply in human concept and could not be applied to a transcendent God. This is reffered to as the fallacy of composition. Finally, Hume also proposes that neither Aquinas nor Copleston produces a theory that avoids the pitfalls of logical specualtion. J.L Mackie proposes that infinite regression destroys the cosmological argument. Mackie argues that there does need be any first cause - thing can just infinitly regress for ever and ever - the chain of causes never ends!!

    You may also want to consider the Aristotleian roots of the argument and how this effects it's strength.

    Hope this helps - if you have any other questions just ask...
    Yes I know! Unfortunately revision is my absolute nemesis and I rely a little too heavily on a fairly good memory and knuckling down the night before... nevertheless, thank you for your help! Going to review the CA now and I'll let you know if any other gaps come up. Thanks
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emilysiena)
    Yes I know! Unfortunately revision is my absolute nemesis and I rely a little too heavily on a fairly good memory and knuckling down the night before... nevertheless, thank you for your help! Going to review the CA now and I'll let you know if any other gaps come up. Thanks
    I'd say next year set yourself a revision timetable to make sure you get everything covered! Good luck in the exam on Tueasday and just ask if you need anything else!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emilysiena)
    Thank you SO much, I really appreciate your help! Probably gonna be an all nighter tonight haha. Do you reckon something on Cosmo is coming up? (Assuming you're taking OCR Philo/Ethics on Tuesday 13th!)
    No problemo, glad I could help!

    I am indeed taking that, but honestly it's really hard to say what'll come up. People are trying to predict based on last year's questions, but a question/topic could just as easily be repeated, so I wouldn't pay much attention to the predictions! Just make sure you're fully prepared for any question that could come up, probably the best game plan! Good luck!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by quirksy)
    No problemo, glad I could help!

    I am indeed taking that, but honestly it's really hard to say what'll come up. People are trying to predict based on last year's questions, but a question/topic could just as easily be repeated, so I wouldn't pay much attention to the predictions! Just make sure you're fully prepared for any question that could come up, probably the best game plan! Good luck!
    Yeah I know! I've seen Peter Baron's predictions (which I thought were horrible questions) so I'm hoping those aren't accurate... A dream paper for me would be Plato's Cave...Teleological... I'm just hoping that Religion & Science won't be making an appearance as I don't even know where to start with that and I've got to battle through ethics tomorrow so I doubt I'll cover it! UGH. Good luck, I'm sure you'll be great!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BrunoRussell)
    I'd say next year set yourself a revision timetable to make sure you get everything covered! Good luck in the exam on Tueasday and just ask if you need anything else!
    Hiii sorry to bother you again - does Hume only have one main criticism; that being the Fallacy of Composition? And, looking at the question predictions, anything on how successful he is? Thank you so much!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Hi - he has three major arguments

    1. The Mythical Bus
    2. Fallacy of Composition
    3. Logical Speculation.

    In regard to success, Mackie agrees with him, Aristotle does not. I'll send you some stuff later if I can find it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BrunoRussell)
    Hi - he has three major arguments

    1. The Mythical Bus
    2. Fallacy of Composition
    3. Logical Speculation.

    In regard to success, Mackie agrees with him, Aristotle does not. I'll send you some stuff later if I can find it.
    Thank you for being a wonderful human and helping me out here !
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by quirksy)
    Here's a part a essay I did on Aquinas' and Copleston's cosmological argument:

    http://rsisbest.blogspot.co.uk/2014/...estons-ca.html

    Got full marks, should help with your understanding, and getting the structure right on philo essays is really important too!

    Then you need to know 3 of Russell's main criticisms of Copleston:
    1) Critisized 'necessary being' - we can conceive of the world without a cause, therefore the statement 'the world needs a cause' cannot be a priori, which undermines Copleston's key premsie
    2) The cosmo. argument is limited by human experience/bias. The principle of causation is based on the fact that everything we've seen has a cause, but it's the fallacy of composition to assume that this also applies to the universe itself, as we haven't seen everything. e.g. we see all humans have mothers, but that doesn't mean we should say the universe has a mother, as this would be untrue.
    3) the universe exists as a 'brute fact', and we need to accept this without trying to provide an explanation. the cosmological argument exists as a result of us asking the question 'why does the universe exist?' but this is an invalid question, there isn't an explanation. we should adopt the approach of ockham's razor - that the simplest explanation is the correct one.

    hope this helps, good luck!

    Hey again does anyone support the Cosmo Argument?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emilysiena)
    Hey again does anyone support the Cosmo Argument?
    No supporters are mentioned in the textbook/spec, just need to know Aquinas, Leibniz and Copleston!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by quirksy)
    No supporters are mentioned in the textbook/spec, just need to know Aquinas, Leibniz and Copleston!
    What did Aquinas and Leibniz argue?!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emilysiena)
    What did Aquinas and Leibniz argue?!
    Aquinas' put forward the 3 ways that make up the classical cosmo argument. Leibniz then put forward the principle of sufficient reason as the modern cosmo argument, which was later developed by copleston.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by quirksy)
    Aquinas' put forward the 3 ways that make up the classical cosmo argument. Leibniz then put forward the principle of sufficient reason as the modern cosmo argument, which was later developed by copleston.

    Thank you
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by quirksy)
    Aquinas' put forward the 3 ways that make up the classical cosmo argument. Leibniz then put forward the principle of sufficient reason as the modern cosmo argument, which was later developed by copleston.
    Sorry one more thing - why is infinite regression not possible?
 
 
 

1,337

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.