Tag: Cosmological Argument

Posted on

Cosmological argument 2009 – sample answer

1 (a) Examine the key features of the cosmological argument for the existence of God.

The cosmological argument is the argument that for every effect there is a cause, thus the fact of the existence of the universe means that it must have been caused by something and religious cosmologists say that that thing is God.

Thomas Aquinas in his 5 ways stated 5 proofs for the existence of God and his second was ‘the
argument form an uncaused cause’.

Around the same time historically two muslin philosophers Al Kindi and Al Ghazali put forward the Kalam argument with runs like so:

  • Everything that exists must have a cause for its existence.
  • The universe exists.
  • (Therefore) The universe must have a cause.

One of the assumptions underlying this argument is that infinite regress is impossible, i.e. there cannot be an infinite number of causes and effects and there must be an original cause.

The Kalam argument continues along these lines: an infinite number cannot exist, \there cannot be an infinite number of causes, \there are a finite number of causes,\there is a prime or first cause, \at some stage in the past one of two states was possible : that there should be or should not be a universe. It goes on to state as argued by Al Ghazali that when 2 states are equally possible the one which comes about must be willed by a personal agent ® God. This later become known as the argument from logical necessity, it isn’t logical that God cannot exist.

Aquinas’ argument is based on his observation that everything that moves is moved by something \there is an unmoved mover which is God (his 1st way).                

More recently a philosopher called Copleston argued that God was a non-contingent being; very similar to the logical necessity view, things which exist now do so because of past events \the universe exists now because of a past event; the only logical explanation is that is was caused by an outside agent: this is a necessary being i.e. God but also the universe’s very existence is contingent upon the existence of God.

When refuting possible argument against the cosmological view Richard Swinburne has explained that the clue is in God’s name: Jahweh/Jehovah which is Hebrew and means ‘I am‘ which indicates that God is, was and shall be i.e. He is outside of time.

G W Leibniz explained Copleston’s view in the ‘Principle of Sufficient Reason’, that God is a metaphysically necessary being – there must be an absolute cause ® that cause is God ® God cannot exist, and again the idea that from this being came the contingent (dependent) upon universe. God is reason enough.

 

1 b) i. For what reasons have some thinkers rejected the cosmological argument?

Most opponents of this view take issue with the idea that infinite regress is impossible. Hume in the 18th Century regarded our powers of observation as limited – just because we have seen what w believe to be limited series of chains of causes and effects does not mean that in the larger area of the universe there was necessarily a first cause. After all we cannot get outside our world to be more objective.

Bertrand Russell took up this idea with his suggestion that the universe just is- Brute Fact – and why not just accept that.

Even Immanuel Kant argued that the notion of cause & effect comes from a way of seeing that our mines impose on the world and that this way of seeing is of Limited value but which we have to use or go mad!

Going further, Hume wonders why, even if we accept that there may be a first cause, does it have to be God? And even if we call it ‘God’ what can we possibly learn about ‘God’s’ nature? We certainly can’t deduce that for example he is good!

On a practical level the cosmological argument is rejected for being an inductive one; one where the conclusion leaps beyond the evidence available to an unsound conclusion.

And finally Hume and others, query the nature of the world which exists – after all if God created and God is good why then does evil exist?

 

1b) ii. How far is it possible to regard the cosmological argument as a strong argument?

Even your most fervent believer should realise, as Aquinas did, that this argument has flows; it can suggest reasons for believing that God exists but can never ultimately prove it. As Anselm said ‘reasoned argument can strengthen strength but is not a true substitute for commitment to God’.

Nevertheless the argument has stood the test of time, it has not been disproved. But perhaps we should view it as the best theory yet. After all Hume’s suggestion that just because experience tells us all events have a cause this may not necessarily be the case with the universe, seems more than a little pedantic.

It is certainly true that this argument can tell us nothing about the nature of God.

Perhaps it is useful to use the Ockham’s, Razor Principle, to sum up the cosmological argument’s strength; i.e. as quoted by Richard Swinburne “the simplest explanation is usually the most reliable.“

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!!)