100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached 4.2 TrustPilot
logo-home
Summary

Summary - H573/01 Philosophy of Religion - Cosmological Argument

Rating
-
Sold
-
Pages
7
Uploaded on
15-07-2023
Written in
2022/2023

Notes covering the H573/01 Philosophy of Religion topic of the Cosmological Argument, with explanation and notes covering all the necessary content for the exams.

Institution
Course









Whoops! We can’t load your doc right now. Try again or contact support.

Written for

Study Level
Examinator
Subject
Unit

Document information

Uploaded on
July 15, 2023
Number of pages
7
Written in
2022/2023
Type
Summary

Subjects

Content preview

Dillon Precious The Cosmological Argument


The Cosmological Argument:

 The Cosmological Argument is one of the oldest arguments to prove the existence of God,
and essentially based on the idea of cause and effect. It tries to satisfy a need to explain the
universe’s existence, and places God beyond the universe.
 Briefly the argument is based on the claim that everything existing in the universe exists
because it was causes by something else; that “something” was itself also caused by
something else. However, it is necessary for something to have started it all off – something
which did not and was not itself caused / created. That “something” is God, according to
Thomas Aquinas.
o This argument is:
 A Posteriori.
 Synthetic.
 Inductive.
 Ockham’s Razor: the idea that the simplest idea is often the correct one.
 (A) Posteriori arguments: based on evidence which already exists. The arguments are post
evidence. A Posteriori statements do not contain the conclusion but argue to a conclusion
based on evidence.
 Deductive Arguments: Given the premises, there can be no other conclusion.
o The conclusion is implied by the premises – flows directly from it. It is necessary.
 Premise 1 – My birthday is in June
 Premise 2 – It is my birthday today
 Conclusion – We are in June.
 Inductive arguments: Given the circumstances, the conclusion becomes a statement of what
is the most probable.
o Therefore, one can agree with the premises, yet still disagree with the conclusion.
o The premises support he conclusion, but do not make it necessary.
 Premise 1 – Many Buddhist people practice Yoga
 Premise 2 – John is a Buddhist
 Conclusion – John practices Yoga.

Thomas Aquinas:

 Thomas Aquinas’s five ways:
o First three are cosmological, the fourth is ontological and the fifth is teleological.
o The first three are as follows:
 Motion
 Cause
 Contingency
 Causation: He believed that you could prove God’s existence through A Posteriori. This was
one of his key ideas, as he believed that everything had a first cause (God).
 When Thomas Aquinas was developing the Cosmological Argument in his book Summa
Theologica he drew upon Plato for inspiration.
 Plato said that change is brought about by something external to the subject.
 There is a self-moving principle from what all change and motion originate.
o This principle is the soul (for Plato). It is the soul that is responsible for the world as
it is.
 Aquinas believed that God had inspired him, even though most of his ideas were plagiarised
from Plato.

, Dillon Precious The Cosmological Argument


Saint Thomas Anselm:

 “God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived.”
 If you can think of something greater than “God” than by definition that must be “God.”
 However, this does not tell us anything about the nature of God. Also, it is very subjective, as
it depends on what your greatest conceived opinion is.

Synthetic and Analytic:

 Analytic: something that is true by definition – e.g., my dad is male.
o The truth is in the definition of the subject.
 Synthetic: the truth can only be determined by experience / observation – e.g., mechanics
are good at fixing things.
o The truth is not in the definition of the subject, it needs to be proven.
 Inductive = synthetic = a posteriori
 Deductive = analytic = a priori
 The universe needs an explanation. It cannot be explained without reference to causes
outside of itself, as it is contingent.
 Contingent vs necessary:
o Contingent: depends on something else for its existence / truth. It could be false.
o Necessary: does not depend on anything else to exist / be true. To deny it would be
a contradiction. It could not be false.
 Necessary existence, basically, it must exist and does not rely on anything
else.
o If the universe is contingent, then it relies on something else to exist. That
“something else” must come before the universe. If X causes Y – then X must exist
first, or Y would not exist.
o The universe cannot be self-causing, as it is contingent. Therefore, only the existence
of a first, necessary, uncaused cause can explain its origin.
 The cosmological argument wants a whole, complete explanation.
$7.60
Get access to the full document:

100% satisfaction guarantee
Immediately available after payment
Both online and in PDF
No strings attached

Get to know the seller
Seller avatar
dillon43

Get to know the seller

Seller avatar
dillon43 Darrick Wood Secondary School
Follow You need to be logged in order to follow users or courses
Sold
0
Member since
2 year
Number of followers
0
Documents
26
Last sold
-

0.0

0 reviews

5
0
4
0
3
0
2
0
1
0

Recently viewed by you

Why students choose Stuvia

Created by fellow students, verified by reviews

Quality you can trust: written by students who passed their tests and reviewed by others who've used these notes.

Didn't get what you expected? Choose another document

No worries! You can instantly pick a different document that better fits what you're looking for.

Pay as you like, start learning right away

No subscription, no commitments. Pay the way you're used to via credit card and download your PDF document instantly.

Student with book image

“Bought, downloaded, and aced it. It really can be that simple.”

Alisha Student

Frequently asked questions