Lesson Aim

1. Lesson Aim To recall and explore other forms of the Cosmological Argument.

2. Gottfried Leibniz 1646-1716 • Leibniz explained the CA in the form of the ‘principle of sufficient reason’. • There must be an ultimate reason to account for the existence of the world itself. • This explanation cannot be from within the world. It must be external. For a sufficient reason for the world’s existence there must be a being that can create existence. • This being must necessarily exist. • This is what we call God. Richard Swinburne - the answer lies in the fact is something rather nothing - implies a creator – “It’s extraordinary that there should exist anything at all…”pg. 36.

3. Other ResponsesCopleston(1907-1994), Russell (1872-1970) Hume (1711-1776) and Kant. • Frederick Copleston argued that there were some things that did not have to come into existence. They would not be, had the things that caused them not come together in the way that they did. • Copleston’s argument was proposed during a famous radio debate with Bertrand Russell on the BBC in 1947.

4. The universe is basically the sum of all things that exist, and these objects rely on things beyond themselves for their existence. • Since the universe consists of everything that there is, and none of the contents can be the cause of its existence, the cause for the existence of the universe must be external to it. • The cause for the universe must be self causing. Copleston calls this a ‘necessary being’. It must exist independently of anything else, and as such is outside the universe.

5. Russell’s Response • The whole concept of cause is one we derive from our observation of particular things; I see no reason whatsoever to suppose that the total has any cause whatsoever …. What I am saying is that the concept of cause is not applicable to the total.

6. Russell was denying that the universe needed any explanation at all for its existence. • Why I am not a Christian? ‘The universe is just there and that’s all there is to say’. Claim makes the existence of the universe a brute fact. . • Claiming that the universe has a cause because everything in it has a cause is like claiming that because every human being has a mother, the entire human race has a mother. • Russell’s universe would appear to be entirely without reason. The religious person would reply that the universe is intelligible, and the cause of an intelligent creative power. • Russell has attracted criticism for his apparent lack of curiosity about the cause and origins of the universe.

7. Copleston criticised Russell. His response was unsatisfactory – pg. 28 Tyler. Quote. • Russell’s lack of curiosity about the origins of the universe is odd, given his generally inquisitive and scientific approach.

8. 1. Give an outline of some of the criticisms of the Cosmological argument.2. Do you think the criticisms refute the theory as a whole???

9. Immanuel Kant • Central criticism – challenged notion of necessary existence. • Necessity cannot attach itself contingent concept like existence. He rejects this idea. • Not move from physical premises (we experience) to metaphysical conclusions. • Kant – a) Existence is not a property. B) Existence is a synthetic matter. • Hume also challenged this notion – no being must necessarily exist – even if it does why call it God?

10. David Hume 1711-1776 Hume also argued against a ‘First Cause’ for the universe. He maintained that the fact that everything within the universe has a cause does not necessarily mean that the universe itself must have a cause. • He argued that we have no experience of universes being made, and we cannot speak meaningfully about the creation of the universe. To move from ‘everything that we observe has a cause’ to the ‘universe has a cause’ is too big a leap in logic. • Argument guilty what is called – “inductive leap of logic” – why do we need a 1st cause for the whole chain?? Nothing in premises lead identify God a necessary being as cause.

11. John L Mackie 1917-1981 Mackie responded to the criticisms of Aquinas (in pack). Modern science and mathematics had moved on from the medieval world-view, which was very hierarchical. • He defended the idea that there cannot be an infinite regression of causes. • It is not logical to think of a railway train consisting simply of an infinite number of carriages; the train must ultimately have an engine to drive it. Nor can you have a watch which has a movement determined by an infinite sequence of cogs and springs; the movement must begin with the mainspring and end with the hands on the face of the watch.

12. Anthony Kenny 1931- Subject criticism not only field philosophy also science • Kenny bases his observations on Newton’s Laws of Motion and noted his First Law of Motion. • A body’s velocity would remain unchanged unless some other force-such as friction-acted upon it. • Kenny thinks that Newton’s law proves Aquinas wrong. It is possible that an object can be in one of two states – stationary or moving at a constant rate- without any external force acting on it. • This would appear to mean that Aquinas’s statement that nothing moves itself is incorrect.

13. Modern science • Further challenges to Aquinas’s ideas regarding the uncaused cause come from subatomic physics. • Particles have been observed to disappear and reappear without any apparent cause. • The Big Bang theory appears to support the idea of a time when the universe did not exist. • Since it is not possible to add to a number of days (Ed Miller) the universe appears to be finite.

14. However, some say that the Big Bang did not mark the beginning of the universe, but simply the beginning of this particular phase of the universe. Some scientists argue for an oscillating universe, where this is only one of a series of expanding and contracting universes.

15. Does the argument have value? • A posteriori argument – draws on universally available evidence. • Appeal – offers way of explaining the universe. • Puzzled why there is something rather than nothing?? Argument strong.

16. Conclusions… • CA fatally flawed relies on outdated scientific thinking of Aristotle and the postulation of a necessary being. Thinking superseded. • No substantial proof believing in God – certainly not the Christian concept of God. Illogical jump – name God. Aquinas’ version even an arg for polytheism – no 6th argument cause all one God – could five?? • Premises only lead to postulate God as explanation – if we are not satisfied this conclusion argument fails (atheist not forced to theism).

17. Mind Map P: Every event must have a cause. P: The universe is an event. C: God is the cause of the universe. A posteriori, inductive Long History – Plato, Aquinas…. Most pop Aquinas – ……. …… Conclusions Cosmological Argument