The Cosmological Argument
AS Religious Studies
Philosophy of Religion
Review Questions
1. What is the Allegory of the Cave?
2. What are the Forms? Name three characteristics.
3. How would you evaluate Plato’s Theory of Forms? (2 strengths, 2 weaknesses)
4. What are Aristotle’s Four Causes?
5. What did Aristotle observe from nature?
6. What is the Prime Mover? Name three characteristics.
7. How would you evaluate Aristotle’s Prime Mover? (2 strengths, 2 weaknesses)
Learning Objectives
To explain and evaluate Aquinas’ Cosmological Arguments
To explain and evaluate the objections of David Hume
Key Words
Cosmological argument
The cosmological argument is based on the assumption that the existence of the world, or some aspects of it,
needs to be explained. The activity of God is said to provide this explanation.
The Five Ways
Way 1 – argument for an unmoved mover Way 2 – argument for an uncaused causer Way 3 – argument from
contingency Way 4 – argument from gradation Way 5 – argument from teleology
Infinite
Infinite refers to something which has neither a beginning nor an end. Most commonly the idea of infinity is
used in mathematics to describe series of numbers that have no beginning or end. For example, the series...–
3,–2,–1,0,1,2,3 ...could continue without end
Key Words
Necessary
The word used in philosophy to say that something has to be that way and cannot be any different (e.g. if a
philosopher was discussing necessary existence he or she would be talking about something which has to exist
and could not fail to exist
Cause and effect
The word cause is used in philosophy to refer to something which brings about an effector result. For example,
the cause of a football flying through the air could be the person who kicked it. The effect is the result of the
action – in this case the ball moving.
Thomas Aquinas
Cosmological Argument
The First & Second Way
The First Way: argument for an unmoved
mover
1. We can observe that things in the world are in a process of motion.
2. Everything that is in motion is in the process of changing from a potential state to an actual state.
3. The same thing cannot be at the same time potentially and actually the same thing.
4. For example, if something is actually hot, it cannot be potentially hot, but it can be potentially cold.
5. So, everything that is in a state of motion must be put into this state by another thing.
6. But the chain of movers ‘cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently
no other mover’ (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae).
7. Conclusion: ‘It is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to
be God’ (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae).
The Second Way: argument for an uncaused
causer
1.
Nothing is an efficient cause of itself.
2.
Efficient causes follow in order: a first cause causes a second, a second a third and so on.
3.
It is not possible for efficient causes to go back to infinity, because if there is no efficient first cause, there will
not be any following causes.
4.
Conclusion: ‘It is necessary to admit a first efficient cause to which everyone gives the name of God’ (Aquinas,
Summa Theologiae).
Motion, Potentiality, Efficiency
Motion & Potentiality
• P: Motion is the way or method by which some thing or object becomes something else.
• E: Ill. If you think of a hot cup of coffee, it is actually hot. However, the cup of coffee is also potentially cold.
• E: In Aquinas’ way of thinking, you cannot be both potentially and actually the same thing at the same time. For
example, it makes no sense to talk of the cup of coffee being potentially hot when it is actually hot.
Efficiency
• P: The efficient cause may be understood as Aquinas’ way of saying that the cause is necessary.
• E: Ill. If you want to make a hot cup of coffee, you necessarily have to heat the coffee. The efficient cause is that
which gives heat to the coffee.
• E: The cosmological argument is concerned with why there is a universe. In Aquinas’ case he suggests that there is
a ‘first efficient cause’ of everything, i.e. a cause of everything. This idea comes from Aristotle.
Infinite Regression
• P: An infinite regression is a chain of events that goes backwards forever.
• E: For example think of a domino rally . If you ask what caused the final domino in the chain to fall, you would say
the previous one caused it and the one that caused the domino before last to fall, you would say that it was the
one before that and so on. If this chain of dominoes continued backwards an infinite number of times, you have ‘an
infinite regression’. If we analyse this chain of dominoes using Aquinas’ terms of ‘potentiality’ and ‘actuality’, what
we find is that every domino in the chain is potentially the cause of the next one falling.
• E: Aquinas’ claim is that, to explain why there is any chain of events at all, you need to have an actual cause that is
‘pure act’ and not a potential cause, because if the cause of everything is only potential, then it needs to be acted
on to achieve its potential, and so the chain of regression begins again. Aquinas’ claim is that the chain is caused by
a pure act not a potential act. Aquinas’ conclusion is that the being that is pure act is God.
Note: Aquinas not making the claim that God started the ‘domino rally’ off as it allows the possibility God does not
exist now.
Objection 1: The fallacy of Infinite Regression
• P: Infinite regressions are possible in reality.
• E: For example, in mathematics we can think of a series of numbers without end: … –3,–2,–1,0,1,2,3 . . . This series
of numbers could continue positively and negatively forever. Then there could be an infinite series of causes and
effects which had no beginning,
• E: If God is proposed as the explanation for why there is anything rather than nothing, a person supporting infinite
regressions could ask who caused God.
The Big Bang & Infinite Regression
• Argument for infinite regression no longer tenable with Big Bang.
• Edwin Huble discovered the universe is expanding, with all the galaxies being hurled outwards and away from each
other as if still being propelled by a terrific explosion. This means universe must have been smaller than now in the
past.
• In 1963, Penzias and Wilson discovered the universe is suffused with a microwave radiation that could only be
explained by the left-over heat from the Big Bang.
• Astronomers have concluded that that about 13.75 billions years ago the universe began as a tiny and very hot
mass that exploded suddenly into a huge inflating expanse of space and matter
Objection
• Yet even if Big Bang is true, it doesn’t necessarily mean a God created a universe.
• For example, some cosmologists argue universe was caused by events in another unknown universe which in turn
was caused by events in another unknown universe, and so on to infinity.
'The Cosmological Argument', 74-93
Extract from Brian Davies, An Introduction to the Philosophy of
Religion
What are the objections to the cosmological argument? How
convincing are they?
David Hume
Objections
Objection 2: The problem of cause and effect
• Hume argues that the proposition ‘Whatever has a beginning of existence must have a cause’ is not certain and so
the cosmological arguments claim that the universe has a cause cannot be proved.
• Hume argued that we assume that there is a relationship between cause and effect, because our minds have
developed a habit of seeing causes and automatically associating effects with them. Hume stated that, as a matter
of logic, one cannot always claim or assume that every effect has a cause.
• For example, example of the bus stopping by your gesture. You may assume it was your hand that stopped the bus,
but the driver may have just seen you and stopped.
• SCIENCE: In quantum science – quantum leaps – particles move uncaused
• Inertia - uncaused
Objection 3: The Fallacy of Composition
• Hume also questioned whether it is necessary for the whole universe to have a cause just because everything
within the universe could be explained by reference to the preceding cause.
• For example, suppose that 5 people come to my classroom. We can investigate why each of the people has come to
my class room. Hume would then say it is unreasonable to then ask: ‘why is the whole group here?’
• Bertrand Russell gave the following example: every individual human being has a mother but it is a fallacy to
assume that the human species as a whole has a mother (Bertrand Russell, 1967, Why I am not a Christian).
Responding the Fallacy of Composition
• Anscombe has responded to Hume’s argument by pointing out that you could conclude that “existence must have a
cause’ without believing or knowing that ‘such particular effects must have such particular causes”.
• Anscombe gives the example of a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat, pointing out that you can imagine a rabbit
“coming into being without a cause” but this tells us nothing about “what is possible to suppose ‘without
contradiction or absurdity’ as holding in reality”.
Thomas Aquinas
Cosmological Argument
The Third Way
The Third Way: argument from contingency
1. Things which exist in nature at one time did not exist and in the future will not exist. These things at any time may
or may not exist (philosophers call this contingent existence).
2. If everything at one time did not exist, there would have been nothing in existence
3. If point 2 were true, then there would be nothing in existence, because there would be nothing to bring anything
into existence.
4. Interim conclusion: ‘There must exist something the existence of which is necessary’ (Aquinas, Summa
Theologiae).
5. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another or not.
6. An infinite regression of necessary things is impossible, as shown in Way 2.
7. Final conclusion: There exists ‘some being having of itself its own necessity […] causing in others their necessity.
This all men speak of as God’ (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae)
Contingent existence
Contingent existence
• Aquinas’ claim is that if everything exists contingently, it is possible to have a time when nothing exists. If you had a
time when no contingent beings existed, none would come to exist, as there would be no contingent beings around
to cause them. Hence, Aquinas concludes that there must be something the existence of which is necessary and
which cannot fail to exist.
Objection 4: existence is not a predicate
• Immanuel Kant rejected Aquinas’ Third Way for the same reason that he rejected the concept of necessary
existence with respect to the ontological argument: existence is not a ‘predicate’.
• For example, one can have an idea of what a unicorn is. However, that does not mean it exists in reality, even
though we can think about unicorns as living creatures.
• Response: However, this is not entirely fair as the cosmological argument is fundamentally different from the
ontological argument in that it is a posteriori.
• Counter Response: Mackie questions the assumption that there is a necessary being. He argued that Aquinas
assumes that anything which does not have the predicate of existence requires the existence of a necessary being,
whom Aquinas calls God. He suggests that you could equally argue that there is ‘a permanent stock of matter
whose essence did not involve existence from anything else’ (Mackie, The Miracle of Theism).
Thomas Aquinas
Frederick Copleston vs. Bertrand Russell (1948)
13.45 Russell claims universe without explanation 14.15 Copleston’s Argument from Contingency 15.28 Russell ‘every human being has a mother’ (Fallacy of Composition)
Copleston & Russell
Copleston
•
Copleston argued that the universe can only be sufficiently explained by reference to God
•
God is different from contingent beings as he is ‘his own sufficient cause’ (reformulation of Aquinas’ Third Way)
•
Argued that explaining why there is a universe is important
Russell
•
Russell argued that whether an explanation for the universe as a whole is possible or not, the explanation is
beyond the reach of human beings.
•
It is unnecessary for human beings to have a sufficient explanation of the universe that goes beyond the
contingent universe.
•
“I should say that the universe is just there and that is all.”
Please be aware, this is regarding the
old specification.
Past Questions
(a) Explain Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument. [25]
(b) To what extent were Russell’s criticisms of the Cosmological Argument successful? [10]
(a) Explain Hume’s criticisms of cosmological arguments
(b) ‘Hume’s criticisms of the cosmological argument do not succeed.’ Discuss
Please be aware, this is regarding the
old specification.
Exam mistakes to avoid
• Make sure that you use the terminology properly.
• In addition, when discussing Aquinas’ Ways 1 and 2 try to avoid suggesting that God starts the domino chain
off, as academic philosophers regard this as an incorrect way of understanding Aquinas.
• It is a good idea to work out a quick and easy way of explaining Aquinas’ key points before you go into the
examination. Remember that in the examination you have to be able to discuss the philosophers’ ideas and
not just describe them.
• The OCR specification states that you must be able to discuss Russell and Copleston’s debate. Make sure you
understand and can assess the different views that Russell and Copleston presented
Please be aware, this is regarding the
old specification.
Explain Aquinas’ cosmological argument
Introduction
1. First Way
Para. 1: Outline First Way
Para. 2: Motion
• P: By motion, Aquinas means the movement from potentiality to
actuality
• E: For example, a hot cup of tea…
• E: In Aquinas’ way of thinking, you cannot be both potentially and
actually the same thing at the same time…
2. Second Way
Para 3: Outline Second Way
Para 4: Efficiency
• P: Here Aquinas introduces the idea of efficient causes. An efficient
cause is Aquinas’ idea of saying something is necessary
• E: For example, if you want to make a hot cup of coffee, you
necessarily have to heat the coffee. The efficient cause is that which
gives heat to the coffee.
• E: The cosmological argument is concerned with the efficient cause of
the universe …
2. Second Way cont.
Para 5: Infinite Regression
• P: In the First and Second Ways, Aquinas makes the claim that infinite
regressions are impossible. An infinite regression is…
• E: An example commonly used to explain this is a domino rally…
• E: Aquinas’ claim is that, to explain why there is any chain of events
at all, you need to have an actual cause that is ‘pure act’ and not a
potential cause…
3. Third Way
Para 6: Outline Third Way
Para 7: Contingency
• P: Aquinas’ claim here is that if everything in the universe has a
contingent existence then…
• By contingent existence, Aquinas means… For example, a chair is
contingent because…
• Hence, Aquinas concludes that there must be something the
existence of which is necessary and which cannot fail to exist.
Conclusion
Please be aware, this is regarding the
old specification.
‘Hume’s criticisms of the cosmological argument do not
succeed.’ Discuss.
•
Hume criticised the cosmological arguments in many ways. You should give a selection of points in your argument. Avoid
the trap of spending all your time describing Hume’s ideas and not leaving enough time for the other part of the
question.
•
Points in your answer could include:
i. Hume’s discussion of infinite regression
ii. Hume’s claim that you cannot move from a thing within the universe existing to the universe itself existing (the
fallacy of composition)
iii. Why Hume argued that you cannot prove that any being is necessary
iv. Why Hume suggests that some things might be uncaused or have other causes than God
v. Why Hume suggested that the universe may not have a cause even if things within it are caused
Please be aware, this is regarding the
old specification.
‘Hume’s criticisms of the cosmological argument do not
succeed.’ Discuss
• There are a lot of ways to approach this question; it is up to you to pick the approach that you think you
could use to best effect in an examination. I have suggested two approaches below. You could combine
these approaches, focus on only one or, if you can, invent another approach.
• Approach 1: Discuss the criticisms of Hume’s arguments, for example by the philosopher G.E. Anscombe.
• Approach 2: Discuss some modern philosophers’ use of Hume’s arguments and whether the modern
philosophers approach Hume’s ideas positively or negatively. Bertrand Russell would be an example of a
person who presents a view similar to that of Hume; Mackie also puts forward arguments that agree with
some of Hume’s points. Copleston and Anscombe are philosophers who would disagree with some of
Hume’s ideas.