HELP - Cosmological argument for existence of God

Can anybody help me out here, I have just moved my room around and think I have left my notes in a box somewhere! I have to write an essay assessing the cosmological argument for the existence of God, so I need criticisms of it really, the rest I have pieced together from memory and the internet.

Any help would be really really useful, thank you! I'm going to have to email this in now as it's supposed to be in in 10 minutes and I'm not even at college :s-smilie:

Reply 1

FadedJade

15

ok, which version of the cosmological argument is it?

Reply 2

dan2112

1

I'm doing the Hume synoptic essay at the moment so these are mainly criticisms raised by Hume.

1.) The existence of a deity is a matter of fact (i.e. contingent, empirical, a posteiori). The cosmological argument aims to prove God's existence a priori. Matters of fact are always contingent (e.g. while the tree always has lost its leaves in winter, it is perfectly conceivable that it could lose them in summer, or not at all). Deductive reasoning is a priori and provides a necessary conclusion but existence can never be necessary so we must reject the argument.

2.) It makes no sense to ask for the cause of the whole as it is sufficiently explained in the cause of the parts. For example, if shown the individual cause of twenty separate particles it would be unreasonable to ask for the cause of the cause of the whole twenty as it is explained in the cause of the parts.
A similar view has been expressed by Bertrand Russel. He argues that just because everything in the universe has a cause, it does not follow that the universe has a cause (= Quantifier shift fallacy). For example, Every book in the library has a cover, therefore the library has a cover. Clearly this is illogical

3.) The world does not have to have a cause. We can conceive of effects without conceiving of their cause. To deny that everything needs a cause implies no contradiction.
-However, in response to this, it can be argued that just because it is conceivable it does not follow that it holds in reality.

4.) Why does the 'necessary being' have to be God? Surely it could just be the material world?

The main problem is that we are in no position to infer the Judeo-Christian God purely by reason.

Hope you find some of this helpful :smile:

Reply 3

Levity

1

"The cosmological argument aims to prove God's existence a priori."
Not sure about this: I thought it was a posteriori.

I think an important criticism is that an infinite chain of causes is logically possible. An infinite chain is dismissed unfairly in the cosmological argument.

Reply 4

Jasundie

1

dan2112

I'm doing the Hume synoptic essay at the moment so these are mainly criticisms raised by Hume.

1.) The existence of a deity is a matter of fact (i.e. contingent, empirical, a posteiori). The cosmological argument aims to prove God's existence a priori. Matters of fact are always contingent (e.g. while the tree always has lost its leaves in winter, it is perfectly conceivable that it could lose them in summer, or not at all). Deductive reasoning is a priori and provides a necessary conclusion but existence can never be necessary so we must reject the argument.

2.) It makes no sense to ask for the cause of the whole as it is sufficiently explained in the cause of the parts. For example, if shown the individual cause of twenty separate particles it would be unreasonable to ask for the cause of the cause of the whole twenty as it is explained in the cause of the parts.
A similar view has been expressed by Bertrand Russel. He argues that just because everything in the universe has a cause, it does not follow that the universe has a cause (= Quantifier shift fallacy). For example, Every book in the library has a cover, therefore the library has a cover. Clearly this is illogical

3.) The world does not have to have a cause. We can conceive of effects without conceiving of their cause. To deny that everything needs a cause implies no contradiction.
-However, in response to this, it can be argued that just because it is conceivable it does not follow that it holds in reality.

4.) Why does the 'necessary being' have to be God? Surely it could just be the material world?

The main problem is that we are in no position to infer the Judeo-Christian God purely by reason.

Hope you find some of this helpful :smile:

Doesn't the Cosmological Argument try and prove God's existence a posteriori?

Reply 5

Jasundie

1

Levity

"The cosmological argument aims to prove God's existence a priori."
Not sure about this: I thought it was a posteriori.

I think an important criticism is that an infinite chain of causes is logically possible. An infinite chain is dismissed unfairly in the cosmological argument.

Should have read your post before I replied! Yeah, I'm sure it tries to prove the existence of God a posteriori, using experience to deduce that there must be an ultimate, necessary, cause.

Reply 6

Levity

1

Maybe the number one criticism there is meant for the ontological argument.

Reply 7

dan2112

1

Yes sorry, the cosmological argument is usually considered a posteiori as it starts with an observation from the world (e.g. all movement requires a mover). However, from this it seeks to show that God must necessarily exist as opposed to merely inferring God's existence. For example, in Descartes' trademark argument he starts with his idea of God and goes on to argue that the only possible cause of this idea is God so God must necessarily exist.

My idea of God must have a cause
There is only one possible cause of my idea of God (God)
Therefore God must necessarily exist (in order to cause my idea of God)

It is from this that Hume considers the cosmological a priori, referring to the deductive reasoning rather than any experience/lack of experience.In dialogues concerning natural religion, Hume discusses the cosmological argument under the title 'argument a priori' which is where I think the confusion arose. Perhaps Hume is incorrect in doing so.

So after all that waffle...the cosomlogical argument is a posteiori. Sorry.

HELP - Cosmological argument for existence of God

Related discussions

Articles for you