The cosmological argument though, does not begin with Thomas Aquinas, but pre dates back to early Arabic philosophy. The argument is named the Kalam argument but was later revived by a philosopher called William Lane Craig. The argument did not initially apply its conclusions to a classical theistic God, but Craig reapplied its characteristics to that same being. The Kalam argument is often included as part of the cosmological argument because it seeks to prove that God is the first cause of everything. The argument states that the universe exists, and nothing that exists can not have a cause. It rejects the ideas of an ‘actual infinite’ which is the idea everything in time can predate itself. It says that to be where we are in the universe now that we must have started somewhere, and if we did not start somewhere then there would be no way of measuring how far we had come, and we would be suspended in time, going nowhere. It then says that something ‘transcending’ the universe must have caused it and gives this the name a ‘personal’ being. It then says that either the universe was created or simply came into being. Its reasoning for suspecting God as a personal creator is that it could not have been natural, as nature did not exist ‘ex nihilo’ (out of nothing.)
There are also some roots of the cosmological arguments in Greek philosophy, and Plato’s idea that for a cause to accept motion from another cause then there must be a pre existing ‘first cause’ to start the motion off. Leibniz supported the cosmological argument by saying that the possibility of infinite regress could never provide sufficient argument for the existence of God.
PLAN
Introduction
a posteriori
inductive
whats it about
must explain the universe as a human
contingency
Aquinas his 5 ways
- mover things cant go back 4eva infinite regress is impossible
- causer cannot cause itself or come before itself
- contingency (necessary being)
kalam roots in ara bic philosophy
William laine craig
actual infinites (a beginning less series of events in time)
creator of the world must be personal
BOOKCASE!!!!!!!
Greek philosophy
leibnich
What are the main criticisms of the cosmological argument? How for is it fair to say that the strengths of the argument outweigh its weaknesses? (15 marks)
The cosmological argument can be seen as a strong argument because it is a posteriori, meaning it’s based on personal experience, and therefore available information that has been on mass witnessed and approved by the vast majority of people (for example the common consensus that there are natural laws, and we understand the way they work).
Swinburne argues from the perspective of an argument called Ockham’s razor (called so because it was a point first raised by a man called Ockham, and the argument is sharp and concise like a razor). This argument simply says that God is the simplest explanation for the universe. Unfortunately many would disagree by saying that at face value this may be so but in depth the presence of a classical theistic God causes too many problems and denying God is a simpler explanation.
Leibniz argues that there must be an explanation to the universe and it is illogical to just say there is no cause or explanation, when human nature determines that we need to find an explanation to everything. He says that to deny a cause of the universe is to also to leave the argument unfinished and causes as many problems as naming God does. Mackie supports this by using the analogy of a railway train, by saying that an engine with an infinite amount of carriages can go as far as it can and still not go anywhere as the last carriage has not gone past the start point and never will do. Some criticise this by saying that to put an engine on the train is to give infinity a beginning and therefore renders the argument unsound.
Hume heavily criticised the cosmological argument by saying that there is no reason why there must be a beginning to the universe at all, and it may just be that our limited minds cannot understand fully the term of infinity. He also says that there is no reason to suppose that the creator is the classical theistic God or even God at all. He says that the creator may be a lesser deity that does not care for the consequences of his construction, and in that case it raises the question that, that creator may not be worthy of worship.
Coulson’s ‘God of the Gaps’ theory can also be applied here by saying that God if may just be used to explain things we cannot yet understand through science. There may be a logical explanation that we cannot yet grasp to the creation of the universe, but until we find that God is given the job of being our explanation. Kant also supports this by saying that we have only experienced the minority of the universe, and certainly nothing beyond the universe. He says that we cannot apply our understanding to phenomena we have never experienced. And this includes the theory of God. Kant refuses to accept God as a satisfactory answer to the universe.
Russel describes the universe as a ‘brute fact’ and says that we have to deal with it. Some people would argue that this is a very immature response to the problem and that to refusing to take the statement further is refusing to debate and looses the argument through forfeit. There is also the analogy that not everything has the same cause, and there is no reason why the universe should have the same one single cause. This is explained in the way that it can be said everyone has a mother but cannot be logically said that the human race has a mother.
It is plausible to say that the argument fails on the count of subjectivity; this says that those who hold a particular religious view will be bias on the count that they will be more likely to accept God at a face value and the same for atheists that they will tend to believe any argument that denies God at a face value. It could be said though that as there are many arguments for the existence of God, together they build a strong argument for the cosmological argument. This being said many weak arguments do not necessarily create one strong argument but are more likely to create a large but still weak argument. This suggests that both sides of the argument have their faults but I do not think that the as a whole the cosmological argument can be said to provide a truly satisfactory answer to the problem of God and the universe.
Timed.
PLAN
strengths
it’s a posteriori so based on available information
swinburnes ockhams razor it’s the easiest to state.
Leibniz must be a reason that is god . support
mackies railway train
weaknesses
Hume why must the universe have a beginning
may not be the ctg may just be some lesser deity
coulsons god of the gaps
kant the universes rules can only be applied to that in our experience not what is outside of it (ie god)
russels brute fact, mother theory
conclusion
subjectivity its based on weather u ask why otherwise its invalid
increases probability??
my opinion.
