Can anybody give me in information on the issues of the cosmological argument? Watch

bethangower
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
Can anybody give me in information on the issues of the cosmological argument?
0
reply
khaleesi98
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
Ok possible objections are...

1) The universe 'just is'
Bertrand Russell denied that the universe needed any causal explanation at all. Yes, we know that individual things in the universe have causes (e.g. you know that this reply exists because I wrote it) but there is no reason to think the universe itself must have a cause. Therefore the cosmological argument, which says that there must be a cause of the universe and that cause must be God, is wrong.

2) Explaining the individual constituents is enough
David Hume said that the universe as a whole could be explained by explaining all the individual things in it. E.g. my explanation of the cause of this reply, + explanations of the causes of everything else in the universe = a complete explanation of the universe. There's no need for the CA to explain it further.

3) The Causal Principle is suspect
The CA relies on Descartes' Causal Principle (everything is caused by something at least as great as itself). But... This is not true 'a priori', as we could logically conceive of a world where this wasn't the case. Neither is it true 'a posteriori'- we have lots of evidence to say it applies to everything in our universe, yes, but nothing in our experience suggests it can be applied to anything outside of our universe. If the principle the argument is based on is not valid then this renders the whole argument invalid.

4) There can't be a necessary being
The CA claims that God is a necessary being, ie it's logically impossible for him not to exist. Immanuel Kant didn't think there could be such a thing as a necessary being. You can always imagine a world where a certain being doesn't exist, and there will never be anything self-contradictory about denying its existence. So, the CA can't succeed in showing that God is a necessary being, because nothing can exist necessarily.

Hope this helps ☺️ feel free to ask any more questions! Also, I'm sure I haven't given the most complete/clear answer so if anyone has anything to add then go for it x
0
reply
bethangower
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#3
(Original post by khaleesi98)
Ok possible objections are...

1) The universe 'just is'
Bertrand Russell denied that the universe needed any causal explanation at all. Yes, we know that individual things in the universe have causes (e.g. you know that this reply exists because I wrote it) but there is no reason to think the universe itself must have a cause. Therefore the cosmological argument, which says that there must be a cause of the universe and that cause must be God, is wrong.

2) Explaining the individual constituents is enough
David Hume said that the universe as a whole could be explained by explaining all the individual things in it. E.g. my explanation of the cause of this reply, + explanations of the causes of everything else in the universe = a complete explanation of the universe. There's no need for the CA to explain it further.

3) The Causal Principle is suspect
The CA relies on Descartes' Causal Principle (everything is caused by something at least as great as itself). But... This is not true 'a priori', as we could logically conceive of a world where this wasn't the case. Neither is it true 'a posteriori'- we have lots of evidence to say it applies to everything in our universe, yes, but nothing in our experience suggests it can be applied to anything outside of our universe. If the principle the argument is based on is not valid then this renders the whole argument invalid.

4) There can't be a necessary being
The CA claims that God is a necessary being, ie it's logically impossible for him not to exist. Immanuel Kant didn't think there could be such a thing as a necessary being. You can always imagine a world where a certain being doesn't exist, and there will never be anything self-contradictory about denying its existence. So, the CA can't succeed in showing that God is a necessary being, because nothing can exist necessarily.

Hope this helps ☺️ feel free to ask any more questions! Also, I'm sure I haven't given the most complete/clear answer so if anyone has anything to add then go for it x
thank you that's perfect! Do you know Kants issues for the teleological argument?
0
reply
khaleesi98
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
You're welcome x

Kant thought that the teleological argument could (at best) suggest that there is a designer of nature. However, we can’t draw any conclusions about the designer. We can't tell if this designer is the creator as well, creating the universe out of nothing. We also can't tell if it is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc. So Kant didn't think the TA showed that a being we could call 'God' existed.

What course is this for btw?
0
reply
bethangower
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#5
(Original post by khaleesi98)
You're welcome x

Kant thought that the teleological argument could (at best) suggest that there is a designer of nature. However, we can’t draw any conclusions about the designer. We can't tell if this designer is the creator as well, creating the universe out of nothing. We also can't tell if it is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc. So Kant didn't think the TA showed that a being we could call 'God' existed.

What course is this for btw?
AQA AS philosophy
0
reply
thefatone
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
(Original post by bethangower)
AQA AS philosophy
Here's a useful thing you might want to know, If you want to criticise Hume then you can say he always chips away at the idea of a Kind, Benevolent God etc all that but he never ever fully strikes the killing blow which tells us that God doesn't exist
0
reply
Asolare
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
I do AQA AS philosophy so these should be relevant.

- Why claim God is exempt from needing a causer? Why couldn't the universe itself be exempt (the universe caused itself)?
- Not true that everything has a cause; quantum physics shows particles that come in and out of existence randomly
- Aquinas confuses infinite regress - he imagines it as a long chain of finite causes, not like an infinite chain.
- Hume & Kant challenge 'necessary' being applied to God - it should only be applied to propositions, as there is nothing about the idea of God that is self-contradictory to deny whereas denying 2+2=4 is.
- Aquinas' argument doesn't prove any other qualities of God's existence.

Descartes' version - cause must be greater than effect not necessarily true and we can't always infer cause from effect (re: Hume who hates causation).

Just a few I recalled
0
reply
fc67890
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
I have a blog called
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top

University open days

  • Regent's University London
    Postgraduate Open Evening Postgraduate
    Thu, 19 Sep '19
  • Durham University
    Pre-Application Open Days Undergraduate
    Fri, 20 Sep '19
  • Loughborough University
    Undergraduate Open Day Undergraduate
    Fri, 20 Sep '19

What's your favourite genre?

Rock (188)
23.95%
Pop (192)
24.46%
Jazz (30)
3.82%
Classical (46)
5.86%
Hip-Hop (148)
18.85%
Electronic (53)
6.75%
Indie (128)
16.31%

Watched Threads

View All