Question: ‘The cosmological argument is an effective proof for God’s
existence.’
Introduction:
Cosmos = universe
Aquinas put forward cosmological argument in Summa Theologica – first 3 of his 5
ways
Using experience to prove the existence of God BUT Hume responds to Aquinas to
fault the flaws in his argument.
Not as rigid as it seems = a lot of illogical leaps
Theme Argument (+ evidence) Counter-argument (+ evidence)
We have experienced many causal All the evidence that we have for the
interactions, all of which involved the causal principle comes from our
constant conjunction of cause and observation of change within the
Cause of effect. From this we can infer that all universe itself.
God effects have a cause.
Cosmological argument unsuccessful
This objection fails to understand the because it makes leaps in logic.
nature of God as eternal and
therefore not requiring a cause. Assume that God is the designer/first
cause. Maybe the designer is an
Only things that have a BEGINNING “infant deity.” If everything has a
require a cause, God is without cause, what caused God?
beginning and therefore requires no
cause. (Aquinas: S.Theologica)
Ockahm’s razor.
unsuccessful because it commits the
fallacy of composition.
It doesn’t say that the universe has a
cause or designer because everything Bertrand Russell: “just because
in the universe has a cause or a everyone in the universe has a
Fallacy of designer. mother, doesn’t mean the universe
compositi has a mother.”
Aquinas and Lane Craig especially
on consider the origins of the universe as Just because everything in the
a response to infinite regress rather universe has a cause doesn’t mean
than an extension of how things in that the universe itself has a cause.
the world behave.
Experience shows that parts of the
They focus more fundamentally on universe are contingent & have a
the nature of things. Beings have cause/explanation. This doesn’t mean
causal relations, but also an the universe itself as a whole must
ontological status, i.e., contingency or also be contingent (have a
necessity. Contingent beings & series cause/explanation).
, must have an external explanation
since it is their nature to depend on
something else for their existence.
unsuccessful because they presume William Lane Craig demonstrates the
the impossibility of infinite regress beginning of the universe using
potential infinites.
Aquinas’ = endless chain of events
would suggest that an infinite amount The world cannot be an actual infinite
Infinite of time has passed before reaching and must therefore be a potential
regress the present moment. However, it's infinite that has a beginning. A
impossible for an infinite amount of philosophical proof against infinite
time to elapse. No matter how long regress.
you wait, even if you never stop
waiting, time can never reach e.g. Hilburts hotel
infinity.. You can't traverse an infinite
series through successive addition.
We don’t have sufficient knowledge to
conclude that infinite regress is
impossible.
Some scientists suggest the universe
eternally cycles between expansion
and collapse and that a new timeline
begins each cycle. In that case, an
infinite amount of time never passes
(so Aquinas fails) and in fact a time
line containing an actual infinite never
existed (so Craig fails).
If infinite regress is possible, there is
no need for a first cause and
therefore God is redundant.
Conclusion:
,Specialist Terminology:
Synoptic Links:
Question: ‘The teleological argument is an effective proof for God’s
existence.’
Introduction:
Telos = purpose
Paley + Aquinas propose arguments that due to the complexity of the world it
would had to have a designer = God
Hume responds = maybe it was designed but it is absurd to just assume it is the
God of classical theism.
Theme Argument (+ evidence) Counter-argument (+ evidence)
Yes, analogies are insufficient but Teleological argument unsuccessful
they do provide us with some way of because use of analogies which
Analogies talking about God. anthropomorphise God.
Aquinas doesn’t say that God IS an Aquinas’ arrow/archer analogy. God
archer but that God is LIKE an archer. is “wholly simple” whereas humans
Analogies are an effective way of are composite beings so they can’t be
tackling the epistemic distance. compared. “the inadequacy of
arguments which are based on
Swinburne claims that arguments by analogies.” (P.Vardy)
, analogy are “common in scientific Hume argues that it doesn’t follow
inference”. from the similarity of two effects that
they must have had similar causes.
When we cannot directly observe the
cause of something, it is empirically Hume is pointing to how radically
valid to turn to analogy disanalogous the creation of the
universe could be to anything else
we know of:
Aquinas and Paley strategically avoid Hume argues that even if we had
overreaching with their arguments. evidence of design in the universe,
They acknowledge that the design that would not support the claim that
argument, at best, suggests the it was designed by the God of
existence of a powerful designer but classical theism. It could have been
God as doesn't specifically prove the made by a junior God, apprentice God
designer? Christian God. – or even a God who died. There could
be multiple designers – ‘a committee
A. McGrath describes Aquinas' of Gods’. So, the design argument
natural theology as presenting
a posteriori evidence that doesn’t even justify monotheism.
aligns faith with observation,
demonstrating the internal
consistency of believing in
God.
B. The design argument indicates
the reasonableness of
believing in a designer, and
since Christian belief entails
belief in a designer, it is
deemed reasonable. Aquinas
argues that this supports faith.
Swinburne = Ockham’s razor can be
used against some of Hume’s claims
here. One God being responsible for
the design of the universe is a simpler
explanation than multiple.
The argument is that proponents of
the design argument focus on the
Hume & Russell and scientists like ‘good’ design but ignore the bad or
Dawkins doubt God’s existence for evil design.
empirical reasons. They argue there is
existence.’
Introduction:
Cosmos = universe
Aquinas put forward cosmological argument in Summa Theologica – first 3 of his 5
ways
Using experience to prove the existence of God BUT Hume responds to Aquinas to
fault the flaws in his argument.
Not as rigid as it seems = a lot of illogical leaps
Theme Argument (+ evidence) Counter-argument (+ evidence)
We have experienced many causal All the evidence that we have for the
interactions, all of which involved the causal principle comes from our
constant conjunction of cause and observation of change within the
Cause of effect. From this we can infer that all universe itself.
God effects have a cause.
Cosmological argument unsuccessful
This objection fails to understand the because it makes leaps in logic.
nature of God as eternal and
therefore not requiring a cause. Assume that God is the designer/first
cause. Maybe the designer is an
Only things that have a BEGINNING “infant deity.” If everything has a
require a cause, God is without cause, what caused God?
beginning and therefore requires no
cause. (Aquinas: S.Theologica)
Ockahm’s razor.
unsuccessful because it commits the
fallacy of composition.
It doesn’t say that the universe has a
cause or designer because everything Bertrand Russell: “just because
in the universe has a cause or a everyone in the universe has a
Fallacy of designer. mother, doesn’t mean the universe
compositi has a mother.”
Aquinas and Lane Craig especially
on consider the origins of the universe as Just because everything in the
a response to infinite regress rather universe has a cause doesn’t mean
than an extension of how things in that the universe itself has a cause.
the world behave.
Experience shows that parts of the
They focus more fundamentally on universe are contingent & have a
the nature of things. Beings have cause/explanation. This doesn’t mean
causal relations, but also an the universe itself as a whole must
ontological status, i.e., contingency or also be contingent (have a
necessity. Contingent beings & series cause/explanation).
, must have an external explanation
since it is their nature to depend on
something else for their existence.
unsuccessful because they presume William Lane Craig demonstrates the
the impossibility of infinite regress beginning of the universe using
potential infinites.
Aquinas’ = endless chain of events
would suggest that an infinite amount The world cannot be an actual infinite
Infinite of time has passed before reaching and must therefore be a potential
regress the present moment. However, it's infinite that has a beginning. A
impossible for an infinite amount of philosophical proof against infinite
time to elapse. No matter how long regress.
you wait, even if you never stop
waiting, time can never reach e.g. Hilburts hotel
infinity.. You can't traverse an infinite
series through successive addition.
We don’t have sufficient knowledge to
conclude that infinite regress is
impossible.
Some scientists suggest the universe
eternally cycles between expansion
and collapse and that a new timeline
begins each cycle. In that case, an
infinite amount of time never passes
(so Aquinas fails) and in fact a time
line containing an actual infinite never
existed (so Craig fails).
If infinite regress is possible, there is
no need for a first cause and
therefore God is redundant.
Conclusion:
,Specialist Terminology:
Synoptic Links:
Question: ‘The teleological argument is an effective proof for God’s
existence.’
Introduction:
Telos = purpose
Paley + Aquinas propose arguments that due to the complexity of the world it
would had to have a designer = God
Hume responds = maybe it was designed but it is absurd to just assume it is the
God of classical theism.
Theme Argument (+ evidence) Counter-argument (+ evidence)
Yes, analogies are insufficient but Teleological argument unsuccessful
they do provide us with some way of because use of analogies which
Analogies talking about God. anthropomorphise God.
Aquinas doesn’t say that God IS an Aquinas’ arrow/archer analogy. God
archer but that God is LIKE an archer. is “wholly simple” whereas humans
Analogies are an effective way of are composite beings so they can’t be
tackling the epistemic distance. compared. “the inadequacy of
arguments which are based on
Swinburne claims that arguments by analogies.” (P.Vardy)
, analogy are “common in scientific Hume argues that it doesn’t follow
inference”. from the similarity of two effects that
they must have had similar causes.
When we cannot directly observe the
cause of something, it is empirically Hume is pointing to how radically
valid to turn to analogy disanalogous the creation of the
universe could be to anything else
we know of:
Aquinas and Paley strategically avoid Hume argues that even if we had
overreaching with their arguments. evidence of design in the universe,
They acknowledge that the design that would not support the claim that
argument, at best, suggests the it was designed by the God of
existence of a powerful designer but classical theism. It could have been
God as doesn't specifically prove the made by a junior God, apprentice God
designer? Christian God. – or even a God who died. There could
be multiple designers – ‘a committee
A. McGrath describes Aquinas' of Gods’. So, the design argument
natural theology as presenting
a posteriori evidence that doesn’t even justify monotheism.
aligns faith with observation,
demonstrating the internal
consistency of believing in
God.
B. The design argument indicates
the reasonableness of
believing in a designer, and
since Christian belief entails
belief in a designer, it is
deemed reasonable. Aquinas
argues that this supports faith.
Swinburne = Ockham’s razor can be
used against some of Hume’s claims
here. One God being responsible for
the design of the universe is a simpler
explanation than multiple.
The argument is that proponents of
the design argument focus on the
Hume & Russell and scientists like ‘good’ design but ignore the bad or
Dawkins doubt God’s existence for evil design.
empirical reasons. They argue there is
