Arguments relating to the existence of God The cosmological argument: causal and contingency arguments, including those formulated by: Aquinas’ Five Ways -first three (motion, causation, contingency) Descartes – trademark argument /cosmological conclusion Kalam argument - time Issues raised by Hume and Russell

Cosmological arguments A posteriori – based on causation or contingency Inductive (Kalam is deductive based on a posteriori evidence.)

Plato and Aristotle Plato (the Laws) – souls are primary movers a Whatever causes the universe to move must be a soul Aristotle (Metaphysics) – must be an unmoved mover ‘The series must start with something, since nothing can come from nothing.’ Proves this by reductio ad absurdum

Aristotle The chain of movers and moved has no beginning, there is no ultimate mover In which case nothing is causing the first things to move But nothing caused the chain there would be no chain at all. However, there clearly is a chain of movers and moved as the universe does exists so there must be an Unmoved Mover. For Aristotle the unmoved mover and the universe are eternal.

Kalam Islamic philosopher – Al-Ghazali Kalam= speech (similar to scholasticism) William Lane Craig – interprets Kalam Syllogism (deductive) All men are mortal Socrates is a man Therefore Socrates is mortal

Kalam: WLC Based on TIME Everything with a beginning must have a cause. The universe has a beginning. Therefore the universe must have a cause. The cause of the universe must be a personal cause, as scientific explanation cannot provide causal account. This personal cause is God.

Kalam WLC Disagreed with Aristotle that the universe was infinite (as this matched with monotheistic faiths) Paradox of the Jupiter and Saturn orbiting the sun. Criticism – with Set Theory – ‘real’ infinity is now no longer thought of as a self-contradictory idea. Counter – redshift, background radiation point to a Big Bang and a ‘beginning’ to the universe.

Other criticisms of Kalam Does everything that has a beginning have a cause? Why doesn’t the first cause (God) have a cause? Does not prove the God of Christianity.

Strengths of Kalam a posteriori and inductive: it is based on ideas we can observe and verify – objects have causes, the universe began. Most scientists would agree that the universe had a beginning (Big Bang). It is natural to ask why the universe began, and science has not yet answered this. Copleston – if all things have a cause, surely it makes sense for the universe to have a cause.

Weaknesses of Kalam Immanuel Kant – causality may be something imposed on experiences by the mind; it is not truly real. So, it can only apply to things we experience, which does not include the creation of the universe. All the argument proves is a cause. It fails to prove the existence of God in traditional terms: loving, powerful, etc. Russell: The universe is just here and that is all; we don’t need to ask why. It is “a brute fact”.

A 13th century theologian from Italy. Aquinas looks back to Aristotle. Summa Theologica

Aquinas First Way – the argument from motion Second way – the argument from causation Third way – the argument from contingency Fourth way –moral argument Fifth – teleological argument

The first way - motion Taken directly from Aristotle: All moving things have a source of motion. There must have been some original source of motion, unmoved by anything else. This we call God, the ‘unmoved mover’.

The first way - motion There are some things in motion or a state of change, for example wood burning in a fire. Nothing can move or change itself – in Plato’s terms everything is a secondary mover. Imagine everything was a secondary mover – then there would be an infinite regress of movers. Reductio ad absurdum - If 3 were true then there would be no prime mover and hence no subsequent movers, but this is false. Conclusion – There must be an unmoved mover prime mover (the source of motion/change) whom we call God.

The second way - causality Everything which exists must have a cause of its existence. There cannot be an infinite chain of causes stretching back into the past. There must have been some first cause uncaused by anything else. This we call God, the ‘uncaused cause’.

The second way - causality There is an order of efficient causes (every event has a cause) Nothing can be the cause of itself. Imagine this order of causes goes back to infinitely – then there would be no first cause. Reduction ad absurdum – If point 3 were true then there would be no subsequent causes, but this is false. Conclusion – There must be a First Cause (the source of all causes) and this we call God.

Criticism 1 God as the (temporal) First Cause This is not the God of Abraham but of a deist. Response… God as the (sustaining) First Cause.

Criticism 2 Contradiction – Aquinas says everything must have cause but then concludes saying that God caused itself. Response: There must be one exception, this is more likely than infinite regression. Why make God the exception? Surely we can just say the universe is the exception?

Criticism 3 Aquinas confuses a finite chain of causes with an infinite chain of causes. (hooks) Response: Infinite regression fallacy is used philosophically as criticism - we cannot have it both ways.

The third way - contingency Everything which exists is dependent on something else for its existence and might at some stage not exist (it is contingent). At one stage, everything did not exist. There must be some thing dependent on nothing else for its existence, the source of all contingent things. This we call God, who must exist.

Criticisms of Aquinas His statement that all things have a cause of their existence or motion seems to be contradicted by the claim that God is uncaused. Why make an exception? The argument may prove that the universe has a cause, but not that this is God. It certainly doesn’t prove God’s attributes! Hume – there is no absurdity in suggesting that some events do not have a cause.

Rene Descartes - trademark Dualism Mind – body distinction Fifth Meditation – Ontological argument Third Meditation – Trademark argument and Cosmological argument

The trademark argument A priori argument (God as an idea and the concept of cause and effect) I have an idea of God A perfect being My idea of a perfect being must have been caused by something. (God must have planted the idea in Descartes’ mind – or imprinted it like a trademark)

Developments This develops into the cosmological argument and focuses on the questions: What caused me to exist? What causes him to continue to exist?

Developments So Descartes is now looking for the explanations that underpin two of the facts that he has established: 1) The fact that he has in his mind the idea of a perfect being (God) 2) The fact that he has a continuous existence as a conscious being. …..He considers two possibilities…

1st consideration: I cause my own existence If I cause my own existence, I would give myself all perfections (omnipotence, omniscience, etc.). I do not have all perfections. Therefore, I am not the cause of my existence.

2nd consideration: I have always existed as a conscious being A lifespan is composed of independent parts, such that my existing at one time does not entail or cause my existing later. Therefore, some cause is needed to keep me in existence. My existence is not uncaused. I do not have the power to cause my continued existence through time (I am not aware of this power so I don’t have it) Therefore, I depend on something else to exist.

Descartes’ conclusion Are our parents the cause of us? To some extent….. But do they sustain us as conscious beings? Or do they actually have the power to make me a conscious being?

Criticisms of Descartes Modern physics allows effects without causes Is cause and effects really true? It is just my perception. Infinite regression Circular argument?

Hume criticism 1 ‘If the material world rests upon a similar ideal world, this ideal would rest upon some other; and so on, without end. It were better, therefore, never to look beyond the present material world.’ We can either stop our search for explanation with the universe: either accept it has no explanation, or find an explanation for the universe that lies within the universe.

Hume criticism 2 ‘Why may not the material universe be the necessarily existent Being, according to this pretended explication of necessity?’ Cosmological arguments reject infinite regression and give the elevated status to God – uncaused, unmoved, necessary. Why can’t we give the same elevated status to the Universe – it is just there.

Hume criticism 3 “The words ‘necessary existence’ have no meaning, or, which is the same thing, none that is consistent.” If something is defined as necessary then we can’t possibly think of it not existing. However, we can think of God not existing.

Hume criticism 4 ‘In a word then, every effect is a distinct event from its cause.’ Cosmological arguments suggest that every event has a cause. Hume believed we have never actually experienced causation– it is something our minds impose upon our perception as a result of past experience. Elizabeth Anscombe – this is a skeptical world view, it may have a different cause than we think but still a cause.

Hume criticism 5 ‘But the Whole you say, wants a cause.’ – fallacy of composition Just because the events have ion common the property of ‘being caused’ doesn’t mean they all have a collected property of ‘being caused’ (Aquinas’ first cause then fails)

Coppleston and Russell debate See sheet Photocopy the purple book Example questions