Are Cosmological Argument Convincing?
Statement of Intent: I will be showing that cosmological arguments from both contingency and causation
are not convincing due to some key problems. These include: the possibility of an actual infinity,
necessary existence is not possible, the fallacy of composition committed from arguments from
contingency and most crucially, challenging the notion that everything requires a cause
RICE 1:
R: The possibility of an actual infinity. A key claim with cosmological arguments from causation is that an
infinite regress is impossible and so we can’t have an infinite chain of causes and so their must be first
cause or first mover which is God. But ‘there cannot be an infinite series of causes’ is not an analytic truth
not is the phrase ‘infinite regress’ logically impossible. It seems conceivable, that something has always
existed and therefore we can’t eliminate the idea of the universe being infinite.
I: But an actual infinity leads to paradoxes. Eg Hilbert Hotel example. If there is a hotel with infinite rooms.
Even when the hotel is completely full it can still take more people. If the hotel is full it can still
accommodate infinitely more people to show up. But it is impossible for the hotel to be full and still have
room for more guests. If these paradoxes aren’t resolved then they are genuine self-contradiction and
anything that entails a contradiction must be false. Therefore if we can’t solve the paradoxes then we can
show that there cannot be infinite chain of causes and therefore first cause with is God
C: But perhaps actual infinites leading to paradoxes is simply the result of limitations on how we are
thinking about infinity. The concept of an actual infinity exists but paradoxes such as Hilbert Hotels
remains mathematically coherent and so it is logically possible. But that just shows we don’t understand
infinity not that it is actually impossible. It is a mistake to apply intuition about finite numbers to infinity .
Applying this to Aquinas’ Ways. An infinite chain of causes isn’t like a finite chain of causes. With a finite
chain, if we remove the first cause no other causes follow. With an infinite chain - it is simply a chain of
causes in which every cause is itself caused and so there simply just isn’t a ‘first cause’ which it effect
occurred without a cause. And so the reason why Aquinas rejected an infinite series of causes based on
the causal principle but this rejection involved a mistaken idea of what an infinite series of causes is.
E: If we are mistaken about actual infinities then we cannot rule it out, we don’t necessarily need a first
cause, mover etc therefore cosmological arguments from causation isn’t convincing.
RICE 2:
R: Necessary Existence is not possible. Contingency arguments rely on a necessary being outside of the
chain of contingent beings. Whilst it does avoid the problem of infinite regress and doesn't outwardly
reject it, it is more you will never find a sufficient reason within the infinite regress and so a necessary
substance is necessary. If there was a being that exists necessarily it would have to be self-contradictory
to deny its existence. But it isn't self-contradictory to deny its existence.. There is no such being
I: But God is different. The concept of God being omnipotent etc entails that he exists necessarily. We can
deny God exists without self-contradiction but we cant deny ‘if God exists, God exists necessarily’ without
self contradiction. Therefore we can reject the conclusion that a being that exists necessarily is logically
impossible. If it is still possible then the contingency problem can remain the same
C: Relies on nature of God being coherent which some may argue isn’t. Secondly talk about Hume’s Fork?
Yes it may not be LOGICALLY impossible but under Hume’s Fork it isn’t possible??
E: Therefore the possibility of a necessary being is still not convincing. Therefore, the final conclusion of
Contingency arguments cannot follow and therefore cosmological arguments from contingency aren’t
convincing
Are Cosmological Argument Convincing? 1
Statement of Intent: I will be showing that cosmological arguments from both contingency and causation
are not convincing due to some key problems. These include: the possibility of an actual infinity,
necessary existence is not possible, the fallacy of composition committed from arguments from
contingency and most crucially, challenging the notion that everything requires a cause
RICE 1:
R: The possibility of an actual infinity. A key claim with cosmological arguments from causation is that an
infinite regress is impossible and so we can’t have an infinite chain of causes and so their must be first
cause or first mover which is God. But ‘there cannot be an infinite series of causes’ is not an analytic truth
not is the phrase ‘infinite regress’ logically impossible. It seems conceivable, that something has always
existed and therefore we can’t eliminate the idea of the universe being infinite.
I: But an actual infinity leads to paradoxes. Eg Hilbert Hotel example. If there is a hotel with infinite rooms.
Even when the hotel is completely full it can still take more people. If the hotel is full it can still
accommodate infinitely more people to show up. But it is impossible for the hotel to be full and still have
room for more guests. If these paradoxes aren’t resolved then they are genuine self-contradiction and
anything that entails a contradiction must be false. Therefore if we can’t solve the paradoxes then we can
show that there cannot be infinite chain of causes and therefore first cause with is God
C: But perhaps actual infinites leading to paradoxes is simply the result of limitations on how we are
thinking about infinity. The concept of an actual infinity exists but paradoxes such as Hilbert Hotels
remains mathematically coherent and so it is logically possible. But that just shows we don’t understand
infinity not that it is actually impossible. It is a mistake to apply intuition about finite numbers to infinity .
Applying this to Aquinas’ Ways. An infinite chain of causes isn’t like a finite chain of causes. With a finite
chain, if we remove the first cause no other causes follow. With an infinite chain - it is simply a chain of
causes in which every cause is itself caused and so there simply just isn’t a ‘first cause’ which it effect
occurred without a cause. And so the reason why Aquinas rejected an infinite series of causes based on
the causal principle but this rejection involved a mistaken idea of what an infinite series of causes is.
E: If we are mistaken about actual infinities then we cannot rule it out, we don’t necessarily need a first
cause, mover etc therefore cosmological arguments from causation isn’t convincing.
RICE 2:
R: Necessary Existence is not possible. Contingency arguments rely on a necessary being outside of the
chain of contingent beings. Whilst it does avoid the problem of infinite regress and doesn't outwardly
reject it, it is more you will never find a sufficient reason within the infinite regress and so a necessary
substance is necessary. If there was a being that exists necessarily it would have to be self-contradictory
to deny its existence. But it isn't self-contradictory to deny its existence.. There is no such being
I: But God is different. The concept of God being omnipotent etc entails that he exists necessarily. We can
deny God exists without self-contradiction but we cant deny ‘if God exists, God exists necessarily’ without
self contradiction. Therefore we can reject the conclusion that a being that exists necessarily is logically
impossible. If it is still possible then the contingency problem can remain the same
C: Relies on nature of God being coherent which some may argue isn’t. Secondly talk about Hume’s Fork?
Yes it may not be LOGICALLY impossible but under Hume’s Fork it isn’t possible??
E: Therefore the possibility of a necessary being is still not convincing. Therefore, the final conclusion of
Contingency arguments cannot follow and therefore cosmological arguments from contingency aren’t
convincing
Are Cosmological Argument Convincing? 1
