ASSES COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS
INTRO: De ne cosmological
We cannot conclude that God exists from the mere existence of the
universe, but only that the universe must have an unspeci ed cause.
Whilst causation arguments succeed in proving there must be a cause of
the universe, Aquinas doesn’t demonstrate the necessary cause must be
a conscious being with the attributes of God.
AQUINAS’ 2nd way
The possibility of an in nite series
Convincing
WLC: actual in nites = impossible
➢ Library example: shows a contradiction and therefore they’re logically impossible.
Big Bounce
➢ Many physicists have argued the universe will run out of energy from the big bang to
continue expanding. At this point the gravity from the centre of the universe will pull
everything back towards it, eventually causing ‘a big crunch’. Some argue there may not be a
‘cause’. Just an in nite chain of ‘bangs’ and ‘crunches’.
Stronger
Big Bang
➢ More scienti c evidence for the Big Bang and widely accepted. Also there must have been
an initial cause to the Big Bounce judging by general laws of causation (better inductively)
HUME: objection to the causal principle
➢ Billiard ball example. Inferring causation due to similarity of experience.
SWINBURNE: inductive version instead
➢ we cannot be certain that God caused the universe, but it is the best explanation.
AQUINAS’ 3rd way
Minor
➢ Attempts further to prove the cause = God
HUME: impossibility of a necessary being
➢ Necessary existence crosses the fork (both a posteriori and analytic) and so should be
‘committed to the ames (cannot be knowledge). Gods existence cannot be necessary.
LEIBNIZ: necessary existence is possible
Defeating
➢ There would only be contingent things if there was a necessary thing. Therefore there is no
contradiction in saying that necessary existence is possible.
Necessary cause wouldn’t have to be a mind/God
Cosmological argument can’t prove the existence of a minded, intentional creator as there could
be other causes; perhaps the universe is necessary in itself or there’s a cause we can’t possibly
comprehend. Induction provides high probability the cause could be good (or at leats an
omnipotent and omniscient being), but it cannot be certain. Therefore, these arguments are useful
but not su cient proof of existence.
ffi fifi fifl fi fi fi
INTRO: De ne cosmological
We cannot conclude that God exists from the mere existence of the
universe, but only that the universe must have an unspeci ed cause.
Whilst causation arguments succeed in proving there must be a cause of
the universe, Aquinas doesn’t demonstrate the necessary cause must be
a conscious being with the attributes of God.
AQUINAS’ 2nd way
The possibility of an in nite series
Convincing
WLC: actual in nites = impossible
➢ Library example: shows a contradiction and therefore they’re logically impossible.
Big Bounce
➢ Many physicists have argued the universe will run out of energy from the big bang to
continue expanding. At this point the gravity from the centre of the universe will pull
everything back towards it, eventually causing ‘a big crunch’. Some argue there may not be a
‘cause’. Just an in nite chain of ‘bangs’ and ‘crunches’.
Stronger
Big Bang
➢ More scienti c evidence for the Big Bang and widely accepted. Also there must have been
an initial cause to the Big Bounce judging by general laws of causation (better inductively)
HUME: objection to the causal principle
➢ Billiard ball example. Inferring causation due to similarity of experience.
SWINBURNE: inductive version instead
➢ we cannot be certain that God caused the universe, but it is the best explanation.
AQUINAS’ 3rd way
Minor
➢ Attempts further to prove the cause = God
HUME: impossibility of a necessary being
➢ Necessary existence crosses the fork (both a posteriori and analytic) and so should be
‘committed to the ames (cannot be knowledge). Gods existence cannot be necessary.
LEIBNIZ: necessary existence is possible
Defeating
➢ There would only be contingent things if there was a necessary thing. Therefore there is no
contradiction in saying that necessary existence is possible.
Necessary cause wouldn’t have to be a mind/God
Cosmological argument can’t prove the existence of a minded, intentional creator as there could
be other causes; perhaps the universe is necessary in itself or there’s a cause we can’t possibly
comprehend. Induction provides high probability the cause could be good (or at leats an
omnipotent and omniscient being), but it cannot be certain. Therefore, these arguments are useful
but not su cient proof of existence.
ffi fifi fifl fi fi fi
