1. The Cosmological Argument

2. This is an a posteriori argument There are many versions of it It is based on observation and understanding of the universe It depends upon asking the questions Why? How? Who?

3. St Thomas Aquinas Aquinas always places an emphasis on the use of reason in faith. He believed that reason was a God given gift and as such had to be used to seek knowledge and understanding of God. He believed that reason supported faith and that a person could come to an understanding of God through the intellect.

4. The Five Ways In his great work Summa Theologica Aquinas puts forward his Five Ways to demonstrate the existence of God from our universe. They are often mistakenly called the Five Proofs. Aquinas’ starting point was as a believer and he appeared to be showing how someone who believes could have their faith strengthened by their intellect and reason

5. Motion Cause Contingency Gradation Design The first three are commonly regarded as making up the Cosmological Argument (or should that be Arguments?)

6. Motion In common with Plato and Aristotle, Aquinas saw all things were in the process of change and becoming (or had the potential to become) Nothing changes unless it is acted upon by something else. Therefore there has to be a Prime Mover that began the changes This, for Aquinas, is God

7. Cause All things are caused by something else. There is nothing in our universe that is uncaused or has within itself its own cause of existence Therefore there has to be a First Cause to which all other causes owe their existence This First Cause is God.

8. Contingency Probably the most interesting of the three. So clever you can brush your teeth with it! There is nothing that we know of that is not dependent on something else. Things come into existence and then cease to be. Therefore, given an infinite time, there was a time when nothing existed

9. If there once was nothing then something cannot come from nothing. Therefore something must necessarily exist (have necessary or non-contingent existent) to bring things into existence. It must be external to the universe, have always existed and be independent of it This non-contingent being is God

10. Why can there not be an infinite regresssion of the universe? Why does it have to have had a beginning?

11. The Kalam Argument Originally an Arabic idea. Can there be a sequence back to infinity? Consider – you have a library with an infinite number of red books and an infinite number of green books. Can you remove the green books? What are you left with?

12. William Craig’s version of the Kalam Argument (1979) Infinity is a concept. It cannot increase or decrease. Cannot add to infinity so the present should not exist. The present does exist Therefore the universe is finite and had to have a cause. Its cause is either natural or by intervention

13. Laws of Nature did not exist before the universe began (that would be a nonsense) Therefore the universe cannot be the result of the laws of nature Therefore it is a result of a decision to intervene This leads us to a creator ex nihilo outside of time and space

14. Have a look www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sfp5--zfBRA www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYsmb2GlDr 0www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYsmb2GlDr 0

15. Problem If the cosmological argument is empirically based on observation of the way our universe works there is a fundamental flaw…..

16. Weaknesses David Hume – (remember his name – he is important throughout our course.) Scottish, lived in the 18 th century and was a philosopher well ahead of his time. He was an atheist A child of the enlightenment.

17. Hume’s points Our perspective is from within the universe. We can only talk about those laws that occur from inside the universe (the goldfish in the bowl mentality) We cannot be outside the universe to be able to study the universe in an impartial, unbiased manner. If we cannot be outside the universe we cannot talk about the cause of the universe since our only experience of cause and effect is internal

18. Hume There is only one universe (by definition) therefore we have nothing to compare it to so we cannot make a meaningful judgement. (think about how science conducts experiments to reach a conclusion – many times and always a control) If we have no point of reference we cannot draw conclusions about the universe

19. Hume To illustrate his point Hume uses this example. Each human being has a mother but this doesn’t mean humanity has a mother All things in the universe are caused but this doesn’t mean the universe is caused

20. Hume Does Cause and Effect really exist? Is it not just our interpretation of the way things are? We cannot prove that something is caused by something else only that when we do one thing then something else happens that appears to be linked but the link may only be in our minds.

21. The Radio Debate 1947 a radio debate between F Coppleston and B Russell Coppleston used the argument that nothing in the universe contains within itself the reason for its existence – all things have an external reason (a version of contingency)

22. Russell Existence is a brute fact – the universe just is. It doesn’t require a reason or explanation. He did not believe it necessary to ask the question ‘why?’. He drew the distinction between existence and contingency.

23. Existence means something exists. Contingency is simply our way of explaining the way things relate to one another but not an explanation of their existence. But our experience makes this hard to accept.

24. Other ideas There are many other ideas and interpretations of the Cosmological Argument. Most philosophers have something to say on it. It can become quite hard to follow some of the arguments. Be aware of your syllabus but if you want to read further………

25. To conclude The heart of the argument rests upon whether the universe needs an explanation for its existence or whether it just exists as a brute fact. Is the use of God to explain the universe a simpler explanation than any other (Ockham’s Razor) If you accept the need for explanation then is it reasonable to use the evidence within the universe to argue for something that is outside the universe?

26. What might it demonstrate? A being who can create universes Doesn’t have to be God – remember Startrek. Even if its convincing it does not lead us to the God of Christianity. Maybe its important to remember Aquinas’ Sitz im Leben (his Blik) Faith being strengthened by reason. Finished………………….?

27. Two new thoughts Quantum Physics – appears to be destroying traditional understanding of cause and effect. It allows for random events that appear to be uncaused or random (light) If things within the universe can happen without apparent cause then can the universe happen without apparent cause?

28. Richard Dawkins (remember him – he is my bete noir and nemesis) If God made the universe there should be evidence for it. He believes there is no evidence. He draws a parallel to those who believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden – there is no evidence but the belief persists based on the teaching of a previous generation. (How insulting)