COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 1 The argument asks why there is some -thing rather than nothing and there is a 1st cause behind the existence of the universe. This is mostly an ‘a posteriori’ (experience) & inductive (generalisations) argument, but the first part of the Kalam argument is ‘a priori’. Plato developed an early form of the argument. He said the power to produce movement logically comes before the power to receive it and pass it on.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 2 Thomas Aquinas (13C) was heavily influenced by the Greek Philosopher, Aristotle and to a lesser extent by Plato. In respect of this argument he was also influenced by 2 Muslim scholars of a few centuries earlier. Aquinas tried to synthesise his Christianity with Aristotle’s thinking to form Aquinas’ brand of Christian Scholasticism but they were not always a suitable match.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 3 THE BASIC ARGUMENT 1 Things come into existence because something has caused them to happen. Things are caused to exist, but they do not have to exist (think of your own conception) There is a chain of causes that goes back to the beginning of time Time began with the creation of the universe.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 4 THE BASIC ARGUMENT 2 There must have been a first cause, which brought the universe into existence The first cause must have necessary existence to cause the contingent (dependent) universe. God has necessary existence. Therefore God is the first cause of the contingent universe’s existence. These 2nd 4 criteria are not as necessary as the 1st 4 as you can incorporate them later.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 5 Aquinas accepted the biblical account of creation, found in Genesis, but his argument was not based on the biblical creation account. Neither was his design argument (5th Way). Aquinas did not accept the concept of infinity, because he believed in God who was the necessary being who created the universe ‘Ex nihilo’ (out of nothing). If Ex nihilo then beginning of universe was also beginning of time, suggesting the cause of the universe must be outside time & space.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 6 ST THOMAS AQUINAS 1224 – 1274 The Cosmological argument was the first three of Aquinas’ five ways to ‘demonstratio’ for the existence of God 1/ Motion or change 2/ Cause (and effect) 3 Contingency & Necessity. Contingency is an event or condition that depends on something else which may or may not happen.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 7 1/ MOTION OR CHANGE - 1 Whatever is in motion must have been moved by something else (Newton’s Cradle) This chain of movement cannot go back to infinity so there must have been a first or Prime mover which itself was unmoved. Aquinas argued that this was God. Aquinas included motion in its broadest sense – not only movement from one place to another but also movement in the sense of change of quality or quantity.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 8 1/ MOTION OR CHANGE – 2 An object only moved when an external force was applied to it. Objects only changed because some external force had brought about the change. Things achieve their potential through an external influence. E.g. When fire is applied to wood, it changes the wood to achieve its potential to become hot. To change, actuality is required. If not a thing would have to initiate change in itself which would require it to be actual and potential at the same time.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 9 1/ MOTION OR CHANGE – 3 POTENTIALITY AND ACTUALITY Potentiality refers to inherent but undeveloped capabilities – the possibilities within someone or something for development or change. Actuality is a state of being, the reality of something at this moment in time. Aquinas didn’t explain his disbelief in actual infinity, but W L Craig does in the first part of the Kalam Argument.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 10 2/ 2nd WAY - CAUSE (AND EFFECT) Aquinas observed that nothing could be the cause of itself, as this would mean it would have had to exist before it existed. Aquinas rejected an infinite series of causes and believed there must have been a first, uncaused, cause Eg – a row of dominoes! The first cause started the chain of causes that have caused all events to happen. Aquinas thought this first cause to be God.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 11 3/ 3rd WAY - CONTINGENCY On the basis that things come into existence and later cease to exist, Aquinas concluded there must have been a time when nothing existed. Therefore the cause of the universe must be external to it and must have always existed. There must have been a necessary being, to bring everything else into existence, which was contingent on this necessary being, God. (Slides 10 & 11 explain the last 4 points of the 8 point Introduction)

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 12 THE KALAM VERSION – PART 1 This predates Aquinas and was developed by two Muslim scholars: Al-Kindi in the 9th century CE Al-Ghazali (1058 – 1111 CE) The argument is in two parts: The 1st part is a reasoned one - a priori. The 2nd part is ‘a posteriori’.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 13 William Lane Craig developed a modern version of the Kalam Argument in 1979, which is now accepted in the Western world. The first part states: The present would not exist in an actual infinite universe, because successive additions cannot be added to an actual infinite – if there was an infinite universe with infinite time and space then there must be an infinite time and space between one event and the next so the next could never be reached.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 14 … Continued from slide 13 BUT the present is an event that does exist as the result of a chronological series of past events. Therefore the universe must be finite. A finite universe had a beginning. Whatever began to exist had a cause, as things cannot cause themselves. Therefore the universe had a first cause of its existence - The first cause was God.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 15 POTENTIAL INFINITE Unlike an ACTUAL INFINITE, a Potential infinite exists if it is always possible to add one more to a series of things or events. It is possible to think of the future as a potential infinite, because more events are always being added to history – an everlasting model. Christianity is a good example – we are created but we live forever with God.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 16 ACTUAL INFINITE This refers to sets or collections of things with an infinite number of members. It is not growing towards infinity because it is infinite already. A part within an actually infinite set is equal to the whole set because it is infinite. E.g. In an actually infinite set of numbered books in a library, a count of the even-numbered books is equal to the count of all the books. Most philosophers argue that actual infinite numbers cannot exist because whenever you add to or subtract from an actual infinite number it would always remain the same number – infinity.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 17 Craig argued that if the universe had no beginning then the past must consist of a series of events that is actually – and not merely potentially – infinite. This would mean that past events form a collection of events; in which, for example, there would be just as many wars as there would be all other events together.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 18 Craig concluded that: 1/ The history of the universe was formed by one event following on after another event – this is successive addition. 2/ A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite 3/ Therefore, the universe must have had a beginning in time. The rest of the 1st part of the Kalam argument is similar to Aquinas & based on causation and is ‘a posteriori’.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 19 KALAM VERSION – PART 2a This 2nd part is also ‘a posteriori’. Craig seeks to prove that God is the PERSONAL creator of the universe. Either the universe was a natural occurrence or a choice was made to bring the universe into existence. Craig says that since the rules of nature didn’t exist before the beginning of the universe, the universe cannot be the result of natural causes. Craig concluded that if the universe began to exist and if it is caused then the cause of the universe must be a personal being who freely chooses to create the world.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 20 KALAM VERSION – PART 2b This argument, like that of Aquinas, depends on the belief that God created the universe ‘ex nihilo’. If the universe was created out of nothing, then the beginning of the universe was the beginning of time. There must be a personal being existing outside of time to start the process of creation, an agent who willed it into existence

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 21 CRITICAL ANALYSIS – PART ‘B’ One of the major objections to the cosmological argument is the suggestion that infinity is impossible. Aquinas and Craig both reject the infinite, yet both argue that God is infinite. Though supporters of the argument say that God is unique and that the laws of nature do not apply to God. There are strengths to this argument, but some arguments are weak & may end up lending support to the opposite point of view

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 22 Critical Analysis 2 – Anthony Kenny - Against Kenny believes that people and animals do actually move themselves. Kenny says that Newton’s first law of motion, in which movement can be explained by the body’s own inertia from previous motion, disproves Aquinas’ arguments. He says it is possible for objects to have uniform motion as well as be in a state of rest. He says we do not have to appeal to another agent or cause. But Kenny overlooks that some cause (FOOD, DRINK & AIR) had given the body the previous motion which caused the inertia

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 23 Critical Analysis 3 – David Hume – Against Hume, the empiricist (only accepts the evidence of his 5 senses), asks why we must conclude the universe had a beginning. Hume went on to say that even if the universe did have a beginning, that doesn’t mean that anything caused it to come into existence. Hume believed that causes must precede effects (Priority in Time)

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 24 Critical Analysis 4 - Bertrand Russell and F Frederick Copleston – Against and For “I should say that the universe is just there, and that’s all” says Russell, another empiricist. In his 1948 radio debate with Father Frederick Copleston, Russell argued against Copleston’s idea that the universe can be explained. Copleston said that if the universe has an explanation, then that explanation must be God. But, can everything be explained as Copleston believed or are some things inexplicable as Russell believes?

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 25 Critical Analysis 5 Gottfried Leibniz – For Leibniz believed there had to be ‘sufficient reason’ for the universe to exist as he was against infinite regress. He did not accept that it was uncaused. He rejected an infinite universe. He accepted that God was the first, uncaused cause on which everything else depends.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 26 Critical Analysis 6 Quentin Smith – Against Smith used Quantum mechanics to explain the possibility of things (albeit on a micro scale) existing without a direct cause. He believed therefore that the universe may have had a beginning, but there is no reason to think that it is God or any other cause.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 27 Critical Analysis 6 Immanuel Kant – Against Kant argued that cause & effect can only apply to our world of sense experience. It cannot apply to something we have not experienced (Kant is acting like an empiricist here). Kant would not accept it as valid to extend the knowledge we do possess to questions beyond our experience. According to the argument, God would be a causal being outside of space and time. Therefore it would be impossible for us to have knowledge of God or what he created.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 28 Critical Analysis 7 The Steady-State Theory – Against Herman Bondi, Tommy Gold and Fred Hoyle put forward this idea in the 1940s but has been largely superseded by the Big Bang Theory. Because scientists believed energy can not be created or destroyed, they decided that the universe will always weigh the same but the energy within the universe will just be redistributed. The theory states that the universe has always been there and does not change with time. Although the universe is expanding, new galaxies are created to fill in the gaps left by old galaxies, thus the mass of the universe is constant. And the universe is one huge, self-regulating, self-sustaining mechanism.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 29 Critical Analysis 8 The Big Bang – For and Against. The universe began 14 billion years ago when a single, dense point exploded. Both supporters of the argument and those who reject it claim the Big Bang Theory supports them. Science confirms there was a beginning to the universe. The argument is whether God caused the Big Bang or was it a random event.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 30 Critical Analysis 9 – Ex Nihilo There is possible support for the concept of creation ‘Ex Nihilo’. Using Einstein’s theory of Relativity then E(energy) = M(matter)C(speed of light)2 This shows the possible relationship between matter & energy. If God is infinite energy (no thing) then he could have created the universe out of himself & because he is infinite then he would continue to be infinite before and after creation.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 31 Critical Analysis 10 – A Constant – against The argument seems quite strong as there seems only two alternatives: 1/ Infinite regress 2/ The cosmological argument But having shown infinity is impossible we then go on to describe God as infinite – we seem to want our cake and eat it at the same time! To stop the question about who caused the cause, we have to insert a constant into the equation (God or Big-Bang are both constants) Something is needed to make the Cosmological argument work, if not, we have to fall back on infinity.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 32 Conclusion and Brian Davies Even if there was a first cause, there is no proof it is the God of Classical Theism – A Deist God would do as well. Hume argued that a first cause could have been the material physical world rather than God. Davies says the Cosmological argument is not enough on its own to prove the existence of a God with all the properties we give to him (All powerful/loving/knowing).