cosmological argument essay ocr

A Level Philosophy & Religious Studies

The Cosmological argument summary notes

OCR Philosophy

This page contains summary revision notes for the Cosmological argument topic. There are two versions of these notes. Click on the A*-A grade tab, or the B-C grade tab, depending on the grade you are trying to get.

Find the full revision page here.

Cosmological arguments attempt to show that God exists as the required explanation of the existence of the universe.
Aquinas’ 3 ways are 3 varieties of the cosmological argument.
A posteriori & inductive argument.

Aquinas’ 1st way (from motion):

We observe that there is motion
Nothing moves itself – something only moves when moved by something else
There can’t be an infinite regress of movers
So, there must have been a first mover that was itself unmoved – that thing we call God.

Aquinas’ 2nd way (from causation):

We observe that there is cause and effect in the world
Nothing can cause itself – something is only caused when caused by something else.
There can’t be an infinite regress of causation.
So, there must have been a first cause that itself uncaused – that thing we call God.

Hume’s objection to the causal principle

This especially attacks Aquinas’ 1st and 2nd way.
The causal principle is the claim that every event has a cause.
Aquinas’ 1st and 2nd way clearly assume that this causal principle is true – they assume that everything has a mover or cause.
However, Hume casts doubt on that. Firstly he says it cannot be an analytic truth (true by definition).
If you deny an analytic truth – you contradict yourself. If you say a triangle has four sides you contradict yourself because the idea of ‘triangle’ is contradicted by the idea of ‘four sides’. So, ‘a triangle has three sides’ is an analytic truth because it cannot be denied without contradiction.
But – if you say there could be an event without a cause – this doesn’t seem self-contradictory. The idea of ‘event’ doesn’t seem contradicted by the idea of ‘no cause’. E.g. you could imagine nothingness and then – pop – suddenly something is there without a cause.
So, we cannot know that the causal principle is analytically true – we can’t know it is absolutely true in all cases. It could simply be that every event we have ever observed has a cause – but this doesn’t mean that every event, including the creation of the universe, has a cause.
If the universe has no cause – then God can’t be argued for as the required explanation of the causation (or motion) of the universe.
Adding modern science to Hume’s point: quantum mechanics

Evaluation :

What if we accepted Hume’s claim that the causal principle is not an analytic truth, but instead argued that it was a synthetic truth –
The causal principle is an empirical (scientific) hypothesis which has so far been justified by all the evidence we have ever observed.
This makes the causal principle more reasonable to believe in than to not believe in.
So, the cosmological argument would be more reasonable to accept than to not accept.
Maybe we can’t prove the causal principle for absolutely certain as a matter of logic – but so far all the evidence supports it (every time we observe an event, it has a cause) so, arguably we are justified in accepting it.
Just accepting that the causal principle is more reasonable to believe that not is enough for the cosmological argument to be convincing, because it is an inductive argument attempting to provide evidence for God, not a deductive argument attempting to provide a logical proof of God.

Optional further evaluation:

The fact that every event we observe in the universe has a cause is not even evidence for the universe having a cause.
We have no basis on which to think that the conditions within the universe are like the conditions under which the universe came into existence.
So, empirical evidence of cause and effect within the universe does not make it reasonable to believe the causal principle.

Aquinas’ 3rd way (from contingency):

The third way involve the terms contingent and necessary
A contingent being depends on something else for its existence – it can either exist or not exist.
A necessary being does not depend on anything else for its existence – it must exist.
There cannot be an infinite regress of contingent beings
If everything we see in the universe forms a chain of contingent beings – then ‘before’ this series, there would have been nothing. If everything is on that chain of contingent beings – then before it would have to be nothing.
But – how could this chain of contingent beings have come from nothing..? That’s impossible.
So, there must be a necessary being which began this series of contingent beings – that thing we call God.

Evaluation:

Hume’s critique of the idea of a necessary being:
A ‘necessary being’ is actually a meaningless concept.
A necessary being is one which must exist.
In that case, we shouldn’t even be able to imagine it not existing.
However, Hume claims that ‘whatever we can imagine existing, we can imagine not existing’. Hume claims we can imagine God not existing – so it must therefore be possible for God to not exist, and this means it cannot be the case that God must exist.
So, the very idea of a necessary being is absurd and meaningless – because there is no being which we are unable to imagine not existing.

Further evaluation

The masked man fallacy.
Hume assumes that we cannot imagine impossible things.
The masked man fallacy shows that we can. A person could hear of a bank robbery by a masked man – and they could imagine that it is not their father. However, if it was their father – then it’s impossible for it to not be their father. Yet, that is what they conceived – so, we can conceive of the impossible.
In that case, when Hume conceived of God not existing and claimed this meant God’s non-existence was ‘possible’ – Hume was wrong.
God’s non-existence could be an example of something that is conceivable but impossible – as the masked man fallacy illustrates.

The issue of the infinite regress

All cosmological arguments rely on the premise that an infinite regress is impossible.
This is because if the universe has always existed (in some form) then God’s existence cannot be argued for as the required explanation of the creation of the universe, since then it would not have been created – it would have just always existed.
Perhaps the universe has just always been here, in which case God didn’t cause it.
Hume argues that an infinite regress is possible. For something to be impossible, it has to be self-contradictory. The idea of events/things doesn’t seem contradicted by the idea that they go back in time forever. So, it seems possible for things to go back in time forever.
Adding modern science to Hume’s point: E.g. Maybe the universe has been expanding and then crunching forever.
So, the cosmological argument rests on an assumption.

Evaluation:

W. L. Craig defended the cosmological argument from this criticism, using ‘Hilbert’s Hotel’ – a hotel with an infinite number of rooms that are all full. A person shows up wanting a room, so reception puts everyone into their room number plus one. This makes room number 1 free. Then an infinite number of people show up to the hotel – but this is also no problem, since the receptionist can just put everyone into the room twice the number of their current room. This makes an infinite number of odd-numbered rooms free.
Craigs point about this – is that surely such a Hotel could never actually exist in reality. It’s absurd to think that infinities could actually exist. If a hotel is full, it can’t make more rooms free – but if it were an infinite hotel – then it could in fact make an infinite number of room free. This just defies all logic regarding how physical reality could actually work. Infinities cannot be possible in reality.

Further evaluation:

However, Craig’s argument focuses on the impossibility of an infinity of physical things, but it fails to target the idea of a temporal infinite – an infinite amount of time, which is what the infinite regress requires.
Aquinas has a better argument than Craig.
If there were an infinite regress, there would be an infinite amount of time before the present moment.
In that case, to get to the present moment, an infinite amount of time would have had to have passed.
However, an infinite amount of time cannot pass – no matter how long you wait, it’s not possible to wait for an infinite amount of time.
You cannot traverse an infinite through successive addition.
So, there cannot be an infinite amount of time before the present moment, and so an infinite regress is not possible.

Aquinas’ 1st and 2nd ways

Aquinas created three versions of the cosmological argument.
1st way: motion
Everything is in motion
There can’t be an infinite regress of motion. It cannot be that there is just an infinite chain of movers going back in time forever. There has to have been a first mover – a start to the motion we observe.
E.g. if you see dominoes falling, there must have been a first one that was pushed – there couldn’t have just been dominoes falling forever.
So, there must have been a first mover that was unmoved – that is God.
2nd way: causation
Everything has a cause
There can’t be an infinite regress of causation – there can’t be an infinite chain of cause and effect going back in time forever.
There has to be a first cause which is uncaused – that is God.

Hume’s critique of the cosmological argument: objection to the causal principle

The causal principle is the claim that everything has a cause.
The cosmological argument assumes that everything has a cause – it assumes the universe must have a cause.
But Hume claims it’s possible the universe had no cause.

Evaluation: criticism of Hume’s objection to the causal principles

However – it seems scientifically justified to think everything has a cause `
Everything we’ve ever seen has a cause.
So, it’s empirically more reasonable to think the universe also has a cause than to think it doesn’t.
The cosmological argument is therefore still convincing.

Aquinas’ 3rd way: contingency

A contingent being is one which depends on something else for its existence.
Everything we see is contingent.
There can’t have been an infinite regress of contingent beings – one creating the next, going back in time forever.
So, there must have been a first contingent being, but that can’t come from nothing, so there must have been a necessary being which created it.
That necessary being is God. (A necessary being does not depend on anything else for its existence).

Hume & Russell’s critique of the cosmological argument: fallacy of composition

The fallacy of composition states that just because something is true of the parts, doesn’t mean it is true of the whole.
E.g. just because every human has a mother, it doesn’t mean the whole human race itself has a mother.
Similarly – just because all the parts of the universe have a mover/cause/contingency – that doesn’t mean the whole universe itself has a mover/cause/is-contingent.
If the universe has no cause/mover/contingency, then there is no need for a God to explain its existence.

Evaluation: criticism of the fallacy of composition

Leibniz points out that It’s illogical for something to happen without a reason/cause.
The universe must have a cause – nothing comes from nothing.
Something only comes from something.
So, the universe must have come from some cause – God.

Hume’s critique of the cosmological argument: the possibility of an infinite series

Maybe an infinite regress actually is possible.
For something to be impossible it has to be logically self-contradictory.
But there doesn’t appear to be anything illogical or nonsensical about things going back in time forever.

Evaluation: criticism of the possibility of an infinite series

Dominoes example – shows things must have a beginning.
If you see dominoes falling – there must have been a first one which was pushed.
Similarly, if you see things in the universe changing, being caused or being contingent – there must have been a first one which started the process off but was not caused, moved or contingent.

Cosmological Argument

The basics of cosmological argument.

The Cosmological Argument is a collection of arguments that suggest the existence of God from the fact that the universe exists.
Thomas Aquinas was a prominent theologian who put forward five ways (Quinque viae) to demonstrate the existence of God, three of which can be classified as ‘cosmological’ in nature.
The Cosmological Argument is an a posteriori , dependant on observation and experience, to show it is likely that God is the entity that caused the universe to exist.

Types of Cosmological Argument

The Argument from Contingency , which asserts that, since everything that exists (or has ever existed) could possibly not exist, there must be something that must exist – this something is what we call God.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument , which argues that everything that has a beginning has a cause, the universe had a beginning, therefore the universe had a cause which is God.
The Argument from Sufficient Reason , also from Aquinas, argues that everything must have a sufficient reason to exist or occur, and God is the ultimate adequate explanation for all existence.

Challenges to Cosmological Argument

David Hume challenged the Argument from Contingency by suggesting infinite regress. Who caused God? If everything has a cause then what caused God, and what caused the first cause of God, and so on infinitely backwards. He also argued that we have no experience of universe-making to be able to make claims about the cause of the universe.
Kant critiqued the argument stating that the concept of cause and effect cannot be applied outside our familiar word, certainly not to the universe.
Richard Dawkins , a proponent of scientific atheism, holds that the existence of a complex universe does not necessitate a creator.
Most modern scientists, cosmologists and physicists argue for a self-contained, uncaused universe, citing theories like quantum mechanics and the multiverse theory .

Strengths and Critiques of Cosmological Argument

The strength of the Cosmological Argument relies on its simple logic and adherence to empiricism. It uses everyday experiences’ concept of cause and effect and is intuitively appealing.
However, the Cosmological Argument has been widely criticised due to its basis in metaphysical speculation and for making grand claims about the nature of reality based on limited human perception and understanding. The argument is also challenged for its leap of faith from ‘cause’ to God.