Knowledge Organiser Unit 1.2 The First Cause Argument -P

Philosophical Issues & Questions - The First Cause Argument

Key Words -

Inductive Reasoning
A Posteriori
Empiricism
The Prime Mover
The Uncaused Cause
Contingent Beings
Necessary Beings
The Fallacy of Composition
The Kalam Argument

Key Scholars

St. Thomas Aquinas (1223CE – 1274CE)

David Hume (1711CE – 1776CE)

Bertrand Russell (1872CE – 1970CE)

Frederick Copletson (1907CE – 1994CE)

J.L. Mackie (1817CE – 1981CE)

Key Texts

Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas

Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion by David Hume

Context

The Cosmological Argument is an inductive (premises indicate a conclusion but do not guarantee it) and a posterior (based on evidence) argument that attempts to prove the existence of God on the basis that the existence of the world begs the question: what caused the world to exist rather than nothing?

St. Thomas Aquinas’ First Way (The Argument from Motion)

Medieval Theologian St. Thomas Aquinas put forward three versions of the Cosmological Argument in Summa Theologica

▪ His first version is The Argument from Motion (sometimes called ‘The Prime Mover’ argument) and is based on ideas in Aristotle

▪ Aquinas argued that the world is in motion. But to be in motion, it must be put in motion by something else that is moving

▪ There cannot be an infinite chain of ‘movers’ and so there must be a prime mover at the beginning which started it

Strengths

J.L Mackie: A convincing analogy can be used to support the idea of a Prime Mover

ANALOGY: Mackie argued that if you imagined a series of train carriages moving, then logically there must be a train with an engine somewhere or the carriages wouldn’t move at all.

▪ Likewise, if the world is in motion, there must be a Prime Mover

Weaknesses

David Hume: We cannot make judgements about the universe as it is completely outside of our experience

▪ Hume argued that we are unable to draw any conclusions about what started the universe off as we have no experience of how universe starts.

David Hume: We don’t need to explain the universe if we can explain the parts of it

▪ Hume argued that we didn’t need to explain what started the whole universe if we could explain the individual parts

o EXAMPLE: Planets are in motion because of gravitation pull

St. Thomas Aquinas’ Second Way (The Argument from Causation)

Aquinas’ second way is the Argument from Causation (sometimes called ‘The Uncaused Cause’ Argument)

▪ Aquinas argued that all things in the universe are caused by something else. Therefore the universe must also have a cause.

▪ This uncaused cause which caused the universe is God.

Strengths

Fred Hoyle: The Big Bang Theory supports the view that the universe has a cause

▪ Most scientific theories now accept that the universe has a cause such as the Big Bang

William Lane Craig: Infinite chains do appear impossible

▪ Craig put forward a version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument which argued that infinities were a conceptual idea which cannot exist in real life. ▪ This would support Aquinas’s view that infinite regresses of causes do not exist

Weaknesses

Bertrand Russell: The Universe is just ‘Brute Fact’

▪ Russell argued that Cosmological Arguments make the Fallacy of Composition

▪ This is the false assumption the whole of something is the same as the parts of it

▪ Russell argued that just because humans have mothers doesn’t mean the human race has a mother

St. Thomas Aquinas’ Third Way (The Argument from Contingency)

▪ Aquinas’ third way is the Argument from Contingency

▪ Aquinas argued that if everything was contingent then nothing would exist as they all depend on something else already existing

▪ Aquinas therefore concluded that a necessary being must exist for the contingent beings to depend on

Strengths

Frederick Copleston: Contingent beings cannot depend on themselves to exist

▪ Bishop Copleston debated Bertrand Russell in a radio debate

▪ Copleston arguing that contingent beings cannot cause themselves

▪ Therefore, there must be a necessary being somewhere

Weaknesses

David Hume: We have no evidence that necessary beings exist

▪ The idea of necessary existence only applied to truth and logic but not the real world

▪ He also argued that we have never experienced a necessary object or being and so why should we assume they exist?

David Hume: Doesn’t prove the God of classical theism

▪ Cosmological arguments don’t prove that there is only one God or even that God is all-powerful or all-good

Key arguments/debates

Some philosophers see this as a scientifically sound and evidence-based argument. It is verified by other supporting arguments also (cumulative).
Others would argue that the conclusion is flawed; it is only one possibility by nature of it being inductive. It becomes a groundless explanation.
Some would argue that an infinite regress is possible without a first cause and that Craig’s notion of a personal agent is a false dichotemy.

Key Questions

Can an inductive argument be strong enough for proof?
Are the challenges enough to destroy the cosmological?
Is a First cause a credible conclusion?
Are there any alternative explanations or conclusions to be drawn from the debate?

Key Quotes

‘... nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality.’ (Thomas Aquinas)
‘There is no case known... in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself.’ (Thomas Aquinas)
‘I think that it can be plausibly argued that the cause of the universe must be a personal Creator. For how else could a temporal effect arise from an eternal cause?’ (William Lane Craig)
‘Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge.’ (John L. Mackie)
‘The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time.’ (William Lane Craig)

Possible Exam Questions

Section A

Examine ideas about analogy in the cosmological argument for the existence of God.
Assess the strengths of the argument from sufficient reason for the existence of God.

Section B

3a Clarify the ideas illustrated in this passage about contingency and necessity.

3b Analyse the implications for the cosmological argument.

Section C

4. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the ontological argument for the existence of God.

Knowledge-Sheet---Cosmological-Argument

Cosmological-argument KOv2

Theme 1A Inductive arguments Cosmological.pdf

5-Issues-with-the-Cosmological-Argument.257594799.pdf

4-Cosmological-Argument.257594799.pdf

Google Sites

Report abuse