Category: RE

Posted on

June 2009 Cosmological Argument Exam Questions

i. Examine the central ideas and strengths of the cosmological argument for the existence of God. [28]

ii. Comment on the effectiveness of the criticisms made against this argument. [12]

 

(i)

Central ideas include:

What the argument is actually stating – cause -> effect -> conclusion: must be a cause of everything -> state as premises and conclusion

Whose ideas are used in this argument? I.e. Aquinas’ first three ways and explain them

Other central ideas e.g. Leibniz’s Principle of Sufficient Reason …

And the idea that God is the only necessary being and why he is necessary this then includes rejection of infinite regress but also explanation of contingency vs necessity…

And why is there something rather than nothing?

Strengths include: (but examine means you also need to look at the flaws in those strengths.)

Logical – however – logic doesn’t make it the only reason

Experience – our experience is limited to this one planet… We see trees fall in gales, floods occur after heavy rain etc. things born then die

Why isn’t there nothing? We wouldn’t know any different! It just is!

This argument does explain that.

How else do we explain the features of the universe like regularity? – God is not the only explanation, and maybe it’s not as logical as it seems

This argument explains this

 

(ii)

Other criticisms include:

The laws of nature are not rigid, we don’t know them all yet, we keep adapting the law to fit the evidence.

Rejection of infinite regress just because of our experience, doesn’t make it so.

Hume’s criticism that this argument is a ‘leap too far’ is like the teleological argument in that it draws a parallel from the specific to the general from the known (our world) to the unknown (the universe) is fair – we don’t know, to suggest God is the cause in place of our admission that we don’t know yet is to make him fill ‘the gaps’ in our knowledge.

The argument is undermined if we assert that everything needs a cause and, then, having posited God as the cause, say that God doesn’t need a cause!

Ultimately – faith can be strengthened, however atheists will remain unconvinced. Even Aquinas realised his arguments would not prove the existence of God.

 

NB Aquinas is regarded as the central proponent of this argument historically, but David Hume is regarded as having demolished it in the 18th Century. However in the 20th century Richard Swinburne has revisited the argument suggesting that though as one argument in the arsenal of theists it may have its weaknesses, added to the other arguments the combined case for the existence of God is made stronger. (Remember the cement analogy!!)

Posted on

Cosmological Argument Revision

Define the argument

  • The idea that everything has a cause
  • Based on evidence and experience, a posteriori, is an inductive argument.
  • Aquinas’ first three of his 5 Ways
  • Summed up by the Kalam argument
  • If everything has a cause so must the universe and that cause must lie outside that cause is necessary and therefore that cause is God.
  • If God is a necessary being then he cannot be contingent upon anything else for his existence. But everything else is.

 

Weaknesses

  • The fact that it is both a posteriori and inductive makes it weak. Based on the evidence available and the conclusion is not necessarily reliable.
  • First cause only necessary if we reject the idea of infinite regress.
  • So why not infinite regress?
  • Why God as the cause not something else?
  • Why exempt God from causation?
  • Why look outside the universe for a cause? Hume.
  • Also Russell ‘the universe just is – Brute Fact.’
  • Maybe cause and effect are just the way we see things not necessarily linked.

 

Strengths

  • ‘nothing can come from nothing’ said Aristotle – how else did the chain come into existence unless it was caused by something outside
  • If we reject infinite regress then there must be cause and a reason and there is therefore sufficient reason to suppose that where once there was nothing there must be reason for the fact that there is now something and that it was deliberately willed into existence.
  • If God is as Anselm said ‘that than which no greater can be conceived’ then that would make him a necessary being, and could be the cause of the universe.
  • It is a logical argument – we see order, cause and effect all around us.
  • Does explain why it has this order and why beauty.

 

Conclusion

  • Doesn’t prove God exists
  • But neither does it prove he doesn’t
  • Faith must have a place
  • ‘Too great a leap.’ Hume
  • Simplest solution? Ockham’s Razor
  • Won’t convince a non-believer to believe but can provide extra strength to faith.

 

Extra documents

  1. AS RE Revision quotations: the cosmological argument
  2. PowerPoint: Describe the main strengths and weaknesses of the Cosmological Argument
  3. The Cosmological Argument (has 15 questions on)
  4. Cosmological Argument an introduction