The Cosmological Argument

The Cosmological Argument

1. Everything that exists has a cause. The universe exists. So, the universe was caused.

2. Aquinas

   • His 5 ways
     • 'Summa Theologiae'
     • Related ways demonstrating the existence of God
     • 1= unmoved mover; 2= uncaused causer; 3= contingency; 4= gradation; 5= teleology
   • Way 1:
     • 1. We can observe that things in world= in process of motion
     • 2. Everything in motion is changing from a potential state to an actual state
     • 3. The same thing can't be at the same time potentially & actually the same thing
     • 4. E.g. If something's hot, it cannot be potentially hot, but it can be potentially cold
     • 5. So, everything in state of motion must be put into this state by another thing
     • 6. But chain of movers 'cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no 1st mover, &, consequently, no other mover'- Aq in ST
     • 7. Conclusion: 'It is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God'- Aq ST
   • Way 2:
     • 1. Nothing is an efficient (necessary) cause of itself
     • 2. Efficient causes follow in order: a 1st cause causes a 2nd cause, a second a third, etc
     • 3. X possible for efficient causes to go back infinitely, because if there's not 1st cause, there won't be any following causes
     • 4. Conclusion: 'It is necessary to admit a first efficient cause to which everyone gives the name of God'- Aq ST
     • CAN'T be infinite regress; must be cause- Aristotle= unmoved mover; Aq= God
   • Infinite Regresssion
     • IR= chain of events that goes backwards forever
       • e.g. dominoes; one causes the next to fall
         • Every domino= potentially the cause of the fall of the next
     • To explain a chain of events, need an actual cause that's a PURE act, not potential, because if the cause of everything= only potential, then it needs to be acted on to achieve its potential
     • Difference between winding up watch at night, and writing on a piece of paper: the writing activity stops if you stop writing, whereas the watch continues on its own once wound up.
       • Copleston claims Aq is making argument more like the writing, and didn't mean like the watch in his ways 1 & 2
     • Is Aq correct in saying you can't have infinite regression of causes?
       • 1. In maths; If infinite regressions= possible in reality, then there could be an infinite series of causes & effects which had no beginning, thought it would be questions- equally, if God is proposed as the explanation for why there's something not something, a person supporting I.R. could ask who caused God?
       • 2. Criticisms of Aq's arg that if every contingent things at one time didn't exist, nothing would come to exist- but, philosophers say, its possible for all contingent things at diff points in time to X exist & later exist, but this X mean at some time nothing existed

3. David Hume

   • Questioned the idea that every event has a cause- humans may assume it, but we can't prove it
     • Bus e.g.
       • We may make mistaken assumptions about cause and effect; its a human habit; we take for granted because that's the way we see things
     • If there's an explanation for every event in a series, its not necessary to ask what caused the whole series
     • We expect future experiences to conform to past experiences; enforces belief in A causes B
     • This undermines ways 1 & 2
       • In way 2, Aq states: 'In the world of sense we find that there's an order of efficient cause
   • The Fallacy of Composition
     • Is it necessary for the whole universe to have a cause just because everything within the universe could be explained by reference to a preceding cause?
     • To Hume, X reason why God should be the first cause; the 1st cause could just be the universe itself
     • Fits in with idea of world evolving from primordial matter & so effectively actualizes itself, thus possible to come into being w/o cause, or had always existed & had not beginning
     • Bertrand Russell: "Obviously the human race hasn't a mother, that's a different logical sphere" ('Why I'm Not a Christian')
     • You can't deduce universe has a cause just because you can identify the cause of contingent things within the universe
   • Is he right?
     • Yes, we can't demonstrate that every effect is caused, believing that effects are caused is a reasonable working approach to everyday life
     • Elizabeth Anscombe ('"Whatever has a beginning of existence must have a cause": Hume's Argument Exposed')- points out you could conclude 'existence must have a cause' w/o believing/ knowing that 'such particular effects must have a cause'
       • Even if you can imagine something coming into existence w/o a cause, this X tell you anything at all about what's possible in reality

4. Reality & Speculation

   • Reality= our experience of the universe; speculation= thinking of logical possibilities regarding issues
   • Is discussion of possibility of infinite regression logical speculation, or does it relate to reality?
   • Analysis of Aq's 1st & 2nd ways
     • God existed once, but X exist now?
     • God= sustaining cause of universe?
     • 1st & 2nd rely on contradiction- he says everything must have a cause, then says something must exist that is the cause of itself?
     • If there wasn't an exception to this general rule, then the universe would have no cause?
       • Similar to Anselm's reply to Gaunilo, that God is that God is a being who must exist
       • Can be countered by saying the universe needs no explanation; it just is
     • Infinite regress= possible?
       • BUT Mackie= agrees w/ Aq, using analogy of a train- can be an infinite no. of carriages, but it only makes sense if there's a railway engine (but not very useful argument because he questioned if Aq's 3 ways good be related to his analogy)
       • If yes, then do we need a prime mover?
     • They X work if we aren't satisfied with the idea of God as a being who requires no further explanation

5. Way 3:

   • Argument from contingency
   • 1. Things which exist in nature at one time did not exist and in the future won't exist; these things at any time may/may not exist (contingent existence)
   • 2. If everything at one time didn't exist, there would have been nothing in existence, there would have been nothing in existence
   • 3. If point 2= true, then there would be nothing in existence, because there would be nothing to bring anything into existence
   • 4. Interim conclusion: 'there must exist something the existence of which is necessary' (Aq, ST)
   • 5. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another or not
   • 6. An infinite regression of necessary things is impossible, as shown in Way 2.
   • 7. Final conclusion: There exists 'some being having of itself its own necessity... causing in other their necessity. This all men speak of as God' (Aq, ST)
   • Developments
     • Contingent Existence
       • If everything exists contingently, its poss to have a time when nothing existed
       • If there was a time w/ no contingent beings existing, none would come into existence, and there would be no contingent beings around to cause them
       • Must be a necessary being that can't fail to exist
     • Links w/ ways 1 & 2
       • Links with the rejection of infinite regresssion
       • Concept of necessary being fits w/ Copleston's interpretation of the first 2 ways
         • Copleston: world = sum of all objects; none of the objects contain within self the reason for their own existence; everything object depends on another for existence; if everything in world requires something else to exist, the cause of the entire universe must be external to the universe, w/ self explanatory existence- 'ontologically necessary being'
     • Criticisms
       • Kant rejected 3rd way for same reason he rejected concept of necessary existence w/ respect to the ontological argument
         • But Onto & Cosmo= fundamentally diff; Comso= a posteriori! Starts from idea that universe exists, and then WHY; Onto= starts w/ God's existence
       • Mackie: Aq assumes that anything that X have a predicate/'essence' of existence requires existence of ness. being- God. M questions why we should accept this assumption; could equally argue there's a permanent stock of matter whose essence didn't involve existence from anything else' ('The Miracle of Theism')
         • Aq X reason why God should be the ness being
           • But, Aq believed that the existence of contingent beings would ultimately necessitate a being which must exist for all of the contingent beings to exist. BUT, this means the criticism of the idea of a logically necessary being from the ontological argument applies to Aq's arg
             • Michael Palmer suggests what my be meant is a 'factual necessity'- God exists independently of everything else, which is diff. from idea of log. ness, so avoids this weakness

6. What do ways 1,2,3 show?

   • Aq: they demonstrate there's a 1st efficient cause & prime mover of the universe that is pure actuality not potentiality, w/ necessary existence; God
     • Aq's God= v diff to personal attributes often given to Christian God
   • A Christian philosopher H. McCabe, said: 'What I have been saying may seem to make God both remote and irrelevant. He's not part of the universe & he makes no difference to it'

7. The Russell-Copleston debate

   • 'The Existence of God- a Debate' 1948
   • Copleston's argument
     • Reformulation of Aq's
     • 1. There are thing in this world that are contingent- might not have existed (like us w/o our parents)
     • 2. Everything in the world = like this- depends on something else for existence
     • 3. Therefore there must be a cause of everything in the universe that exists outside of it
     • 4. This cause must be a necessary being- one which contains the reason for its existence within itself
     • 5. This necessary being is God
   • Russell's argument
     • Refused to accept idea of a necessary being as one that cannot be thought not to exist, & concluded that the regress of casual events didn't lead to the existence of everything in the universe
     • "What I am saying is that the concept of cause is not applicable to the total"
     • Just because each human has a mother doesn't mean the entire human race has a mother
     • The universe is a brute fact; its existence X demand an explanation
       • "I should say that the universe is just there, and that's all"
     • Argument for cause of universe has little meaning/ significance, a 'question that has no meaning'- "Shall we pass on to some other issue?"
       • Copleston's response: "If one refused to sit at the chess board and make a move, one cannot, of course, be checkmated"
   • p. 112-113= important
   • Summary: C put forward defence of Cosmo arg, centred on reformulation of Aq's THIRD way R rejected his arguments & suggested the universe X explainable in the way that C wanted. At heart of debate= contingency & necessity, & what's sufficient reason for anything to exist
   • The principle of sufficient reason- comes from Leibniz (dev.'d a new version of the Cosmo arg). At heart= idea that explaining the truth of a fact/ existence of a thing, includes an explanation of why its like that and X different
     • "In virtue of which we hold that no fact could ever be true of or existence, nor statement correct, unless there were sufficient reason why it was thus and not otherwise" -Leibniz
       • Must give an example