c) Strengths and weaknesses of Cosmological Arguments: probability rather than proof, brute fact, debates about infinite regress, necessary existence and God as a necessary being. Challenges to the argument. d) Philosophical language and thought through significant concepts and the works of key thinkers, illustrated in issues in the philosophy of religion. With reference to the ideas of Aquinas and D Hume, I Kant.

To be able to evaluate the Strengths and weaknesses of Cosmological Argument for the existence of God. To be able to refer to the work of key thinkers, illustrated in issues in the philosophy of religion. With reference to the ideas of Aquinas and D Hume, I Kant.

Homework feedback Read ‘Cosmological arguments’ by Libby Ahkuwalia. Create 10 comprehension style questions – type them up and bring them with you to next lesson.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLKwImYuEKU Recap of the Kalam cosmological argument 1948 – BBC Radio debate – Copleston v Russell Copleston – used Aquinas’s 3rd way – from contingency – to prove that God was necessary to enable things to come into existence. Russell – universe is ‘self coherent’ – everything is dependent on each other – does not need an external explanation for being Brute fact – ‘the universe is just there, and that’s all’. Accepted infinite regress Said Coplestons argument was weak – big jump from everything in the universe being contingent to the universe itself being contingent.

Page 36-40 Make notes on these pages with reference to the criticisms of the cosmological argument. Unmoved mover? Uncaused cause? How do you leap to God being the answer? What were the 3 issues that David Hume had with the cosmological argument? What were Russell’s objections? Make a note that the key problem with the cosmological argument is that it cannot explain God, only postulate God as an explanation

David Hume https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RF6GVgZgiWA Explanation of the parts of the universe is sufficient – we do not need to explain the whole. However this can seem unsatisfactory – may lead to infinite regress or circular arguments The causation principle is questionable – we can conceive of things that do not have a cause – therefore it is possible. However, just because something is possible in logic does not mean it is possible in reality.

Bertrand Russell https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppBxkTTGoRQ ‘Fallacy of composition’ - simply because the parts have a certain composition does not mean the whole does. E.g. small bricks does not lead to a small brick wall. Just because the parts of the universe need a cause does not mean that the universe itself does. ‘The universe just is’.

Immanuel Kant https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqrRl-1UT70 God is not logically necessary – he can conceive of a world without God If God does not exist in any world then he must be contingent – this goes against the cosmological argument The necessary being to kick start the universe could have been the big bang, the universe itself or consciousness. The necessary being does not have to be God.

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. Offering ‘mythological explanations’ Dawkins suggests it is intellectually degrading. First cause only necessary if we reject the idea of infinite regress. Does depend on the idea that God is a necessary being. Just because something does exist does not mean that it must!

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.’ Hume suggested that maybe cause and effect are just the way we see things not necessarily linked. Even if God is the cause it does not tell us anything about God other than that he created. The premises do not allow of such a leap of conclusion. The argument Hume claims begins with something familiar to us and then goes on to makes claims about things outside of our experience.

Strengths Science has not yet come up with a better explanation. It rejects infinite regress as an insufficient reason. ‘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 is now something and there must be reason for the fact of its existence. Copleston rejected the idea of infinite regress on the basis that an infinite chain could only ever consist of contingent beings which could never have brought about their own existence. But if the explanation for the universe’ existence cannot be found within the universe it is logical to look outside for the cause.

Copleston‘s answer to Russell was that partial explanations are unsatisfactory and that an adequate explanation is one to which nothing further can be added therefore the idea that the universe ‘just is’ is insufficient. And God is the complete explanation. See Leibniz above. Because if God is self-causing he does not need an explanation. 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. Swinburne considered God the simplest explanation. ‘there could in this respect be no simpler explanation than one which postulated only one cause…‘

Plenary What are the strengths and weaknesses of the cosmological argument for the existence of God? Who are the key thinkers with regard to the cosmological argument? What did they say?