If you find these notes helpful, feel free to
check out my tutoring profile here :D
https://www.mytutor.co.uk/tutors/1007961
3/
The Kalām argument (an argument from temporal causation)
- It is an a posteriori argument: an argument where at least one premise is a
posteriori/justified on the basis of experience.
- It is ‘deductive’: if the premises are true the conclusion must be true
- It is a horizontal argument: this means temporally tracing a sequence of
causes backwards through time along a chronological timeline, arguing that
there must ultimately be a first cause or beginning to explain why the
sequence exists. The continued existence of the effect does not depend on
the continued existence of the cause. Each member of a temporal sequence
has its own independent causal power to cause further effects.
- P1. The universe is composed of temporal phenomena - things that occur
and exist in time - that are preceded by other temporal phenomena that are
ordered in time.
- P2. An infinite regress of temporal phenomena is impossible.
- Al-Ghazali's argues that there cannot be infinite regress as it would
lead to impossible paradoxes. He bases his argument upon the
movements of the planets in order to generate a mathematical
paradox. Jupiter moves around the world roughly twice as fast as
Saturn. If the universe had been around to an infinite amount of time,
then both planets would have orbited earth the same number of
times. However, this is impossible as we know that Jupiter must have
orbited Earth at least twice as many times. He therefore concludes
that infinity is not a coherent concept as it is self-contradictory and
that therefore the universe cannot have existed for an infinite past.
- C1. Therefore, the universe must have a beginning.
, - P3. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
- He believes it a logical impossibility that something can come from
nothing
- C2. Therefore, there is a cause of the existence of the universe.
Aquinas' 1st Way (argument from motion)
- It is an a posteriori argument: an argument where at least one premise is a
posteriori/justified on the basis of experience.
- It is ‘deductive’: if the premises are true the conclusion must be true
- P1: The universe contains motion
- ‘Motion’ is not motion through space, but rather how something
changes from ‘potentially’ X to ‘actually’ X. Change can only be brought
about by what is actual )
- P2: Nothing can move/change itself (nothing can actualise its own potential) -
it must be moved/changed by something distinct from it
- “It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same
way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move
itself.”
- P3: If there were an infinite series of such secondary movers (i.e. movers
moved by other movers) then there would be no first mover.
- P4: If there were no first mover there could not be any motion
- Since if you remove the cause, you cannot have the effect
- This is a reductio ad absurdum as thing have moved
- C1: Therefore, given P1 (ie that there is motion) there must be a first mover
- P5: God is this first mover/changer
- God is “pure actuality”/actus purus
- C2: Therefore God exists
Aquinas' 2nd Way (argument from atemporal causation)
- It is an a posteriori argument: an argument where at least one premise is a
posteriori/justified on the basis of experience.
- It is ‘deductive’: if the premises are true the conclusion must be true
- Aquinas is concerned with efficient causation, which seeks the explanation
for how a thing came into being
, - Thus, this is a vertical argument: This means atemporally tracing a hierarchy
of causes that depend on one another simultaneously in the present
moment, wherein a secondary cause possesses no intrinsic power to act or
exist, but must be continuously actualised and sustained in the present
moment by a primary, sustaining cause on which all other causes depend.
- P1: We know that the world contains efficient causation (or an order of cause
and effect).
- P2: Nothing can be the efficient cause of itself
- If it could it would have to be prior to itself. ‘Prior’ here is not taken to
mean temporally prior but rather metaphysically prior (in terms of
dependence).
- P3: If the series of (efficient) causes were infinite with no first (efficient) cause
then there would be no subsequent (efficient) causes (contra P1).
- This is a reductio ad absurdum as there are efficient causes
- C1: Therefore, there is a first (efficient) cause (and this is what we call God).
Aquinas' 3rd way (an argument from contingency)
- It is an a posteriori argument: an argument where at least one premise is a
posteriori/justified on the basis of experience.
- It is ‘deductive’: if the premises are true the conclusion must be true
- P1: Things in the universe exist contingently
- For something to exist contingently means that its existence does not
depend upon something else
- It is possible, therefore, for contingent beings not to exist
- P2: If it is possible for something not to exist, then at some point, it does not
exist
- P3: If everything exists contingently, then at some point, there was nothing in
existence
- This is because there cannot be an infinite regress of contingent
beings
- P4: If at some point, there was nothing in existence, then nothing would exist
now
- P5: It is obviously untrue that nothing exists now
- This is a reductio ad absurdum as things do exist now
check out my tutoring profile here :D
https://www.mytutor.co.uk/tutors/1007961
3/
The Kalām argument (an argument from temporal causation)
- It is an a posteriori argument: an argument where at least one premise is a
posteriori/justified on the basis of experience.
- It is ‘deductive’: if the premises are true the conclusion must be true
- It is a horizontal argument: this means temporally tracing a sequence of
causes backwards through time along a chronological timeline, arguing that
there must ultimately be a first cause or beginning to explain why the
sequence exists. The continued existence of the effect does not depend on
the continued existence of the cause. Each member of a temporal sequence
has its own independent causal power to cause further effects.
- P1. The universe is composed of temporal phenomena - things that occur
and exist in time - that are preceded by other temporal phenomena that are
ordered in time.
- P2. An infinite regress of temporal phenomena is impossible.
- Al-Ghazali's argues that there cannot be infinite regress as it would
lead to impossible paradoxes. He bases his argument upon the
movements of the planets in order to generate a mathematical
paradox. Jupiter moves around the world roughly twice as fast as
Saturn. If the universe had been around to an infinite amount of time,
then both planets would have orbited earth the same number of
times. However, this is impossible as we know that Jupiter must have
orbited Earth at least twice as many times. He therefore concludes
that infinity is not a coherent concept as it is self-contradictory and
that therefore the universe cannot have existed for an infinite past.
- C1. Therefore, the universe must have a beginning.
, - P3. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
- He believes it a logical impossibility that something can come from
nothing
- C2. Therefore, there is a cause of the existence of the universe.
Aquinas' 1st Way (argument from motion)
- It is an a posteriori argument: an argument where at least one premise is a
posteriori/justified on the basis of experience.
- It is ‘deductive’: if the premises are true the conclusion must be true
- P1: The universe contains motion
- ‘Motion’ is not motion through space, but rather how something
changes from ‘potentially’ X to ‘actually’ X. Change can only be brought
about by what is actual )
- P2: Nothing can move/change itself (nothing can actualise its own potential) -
it must be moved/changed by something distinct from it
- “It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same
way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move
itself.”
- P3: If there were an infinite series of such secondary movers (i.e. movers
moved by other movers) then there would be no first mover.
- P4: If there were no first mover there could not be any motion
- Since if you remove the cause, you cannot have the effect
- This is a reductio ad absurdum as thing have moved
- C1: Therefore, given P1 (ie that there is motion) there must be a first mover
- P5: God is this first mover/changer
- God is “pure actuality”/actus purus
- C2: Therefore God exists
Aquinas' 2nd Way (argument from atemporal causation)
- It is an a posteriori argument: an argument where at least one premise is a
posteriori/justified on the basis of experience.
- It is ‘deductive’: if the premises are true the conclusion must be true
- Aquinas is concerned with efficient causation, which seeks the explanation
for how a thing came into being
, - Thus, this is a vertical argument: This means atemporally tracing a hierarchy
of causes that depend on one another simultaneously in the present
moment, wherein a secondary cause possesses no intrinsic power to act or
exist, but must be continuously actualised and sustained in the present
moment by a primary, sustaining cause on which all other causes depend.
- P1: We know that the world contains efficient causation (or an order of cause
and effect).
- P2: Nothing can be the efficient cause of itself
- If it could it would have to be prior to itself. ‘Prior’ here is not taken to
mean temporally prior but rather metaphysically prior (in terms of
dependence).
- P3: If the series of (efficient) causes were infinite with no first (efficient) cause
then there would be no subsequent (efficient) causes (contra P1).
- This is a reductio ad absurdum as there are efficient causes
- C1: Therefore, there is a first (efficient) cause (and this is what we call God).
Aquinas' 3rd way (an argument from contingency)
- It is an a posteriori argument: an argument where at least one premise is a
posteriori/justified on the basis of experience.
- It is ‘deductive’: if the premises are true the conclusion must be true
- P1: Things in the universe exist contingently
- For something to exist contingently means that its existence does not
depend upon something else
- It is possible, therefore, for contingent beings not to exist
- P2: If it is possible for something not to exist, then at some point, it does not
exist
- P3: If everything exists contingently, then at some point, there was nothing in
existence
- This is because there cannot be an infinite regress of contingent
beings
- P4: If at some point, there was nothing in existence, then nothing would exist
now
- P5: It is obviously untrue that nothing exists now
- This is a reductio ad absurdum as things do exist now
