Alex Griffiths AO1: Examine the main features of the cosmological argument (21) AO2: Comment on the view that the weaknesses of the cosmological argument show it is a failure (9) The cosmological argument is an a posteriori argument based on the existence of the universe. The argument is based on the fact that the universe exists but is also based on the assumption that there must be an explanation for its existence and that this explanation is infact God. Thomas Aquinas is the scholar behind this argument and he believed that everything we observe today has a first mover and therefore there has to be a first cause (a first cause) in order for the universe to exist. The argument concludes that this first mover is God. Infinite regress is rejected by this argument, it argues that there has to be a first cause, and explanation for the existence of the universe.
Outline two key objections to the Ontological Argument and explain the responses made to them. The ontological argument was first introduced by Anselm in the ‘Prosologian’. It is an a priori argument as it is not based on empirical evidence but id deductive and analytic in that it allows one to use logical reasoning to reach a logically necessary conclusion which, in theory, cannot be disputed. Anselm defines God as ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’ (TTWNGCBC) and states that everyone, theist or not, can accept this definition. He argues that ‘the fool’ in Psalm 53 can conceive of God but fails to believe he exists.
According to the cosmological argument, first of all, Aquinas claims that, “it is impossible that a thing should be both mover and moved, namely it should not move itself.” (Aquinas, Question 2, Article 3) This part of the argument is obviously correct. To say that a thing is potentially hot is to say that it is not yet hot, but it might be made to be hot by an efficient cause that is a thing actually hot. It is not possible that a thing should be in actuality and potentiality in the same respect. Therefore, it is evident that everything needs a mover to put it into motion. Secondly, Aquinas concludes that common sense observation tells us that no object can create itself.
Simply put, the fine-tuning argument contends that the universe was designed to ultimately create human beings. Fine-tuning is an argument which is able to contest one of the atheist’s own theories to disprove God. This will be explained in more detail later in this paper. In response to this, McCloskey says the cosmological argument “does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause.” As mentioned before, the cosmological argument is but one part of a concurrence for the existence of God. It does not prove God’s existence; it argues that there must be a necessary being which created the universe.
If, for lack of better terminology, God were to “turn his head” all that is not being perceived would cease to exist. To support his claim of God as the divine constant perceiver, Berkeley must prove the existence of God and God’s constant perception of existence. Berkeley’s arguments one weakness and last step to being completely empirical is the removal of God as a divine perceiver. Perception presupposes two parts, a perceiver and the perceived; why not a singular entity; human. With the removal of God from his argument, Berkeley would take empiricism to its conclusion, and position self-perception as maintaining our existence.
It is also deductive, so the conclusion is the only possible one that could be deduced give the premises. Therefore, it is theoretically strong. Anselm proposed in the Proslogian that the existence of God was true for him by the virtue of faith and logical necessity. He proposed a reductio ad absurdum argument that aimed to demonstrate he impossibility of denying God’s existence. His first form of the argument runs as follows: (P1) God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived (P2) If God exists in the mind alone (in intellect) then a greater being can be conceived (in re) (P3) God to be the greatest being, has to existing the mind and in reality, otherwise another being would be greater than God.
One of Aquinas’ ways of proving God’s existence; ‘the uncaused causer’, states that every cause in the universe has an effect, the chain of cause and effect must have a terminus to avoid infinite regress. Aquinas rejects infinite regress because it denotes that there cannot be an answer to the question “what is the explanation?” Therefore there must be a necessary being that started the chain, this for Aquinas is God but this is not a satisfactory answer for everyone. Bertrand Russell, somewhat like Aristotle, states that the universe is a “brute fact”, although unlike Aristotle did not see that there needed to be a Prime Mover or Uncaused Cause. Russell made another criticism when he suggested that one cannot go from saying that every event has a cause thus the whole universe has a cause, it is like moving from saying that every human being has a mother to the claim that the human race as a whole has a mother. One cannot move from individual causes to the totality (whole, everything) has a cause.
A second challenge of Hume is that we are able to possibly imagine that something can cause itself into existence. This challenge severely weaken's Aquinas argument from cause as it suggests that in fact there is no need for a fist cause as regress of cause and effect is disrupted. Anscombe's response to Hume is, in "When there is a beginning there must be a cause: Hume's argument exposed," that it may be possible to imagine this being the case but it is illogical to suppose that this is the case as it is a "contradiction to absurdity" to decide that "it could be" therefore "it is." It is similar to imagine that a magician may be able to pull a rabbit out of a hat without any prior knowledge of its existence but to suppose it is the case that this has happened is illogical. However modern theoretical and quantum physicists have begun to produce evidence that it is perhaps evident that energy has the ability to come into existence of its own accord which would
The Ontological Argument The Ontological Argument is an a priori argument, revolving around the existence of God. St Anselm’s Ontological Argument St Anselm, the then Archbishop of Canterbury devised the Ontological Argument in his ‘Proslogion.’ Anselm approached the existence of God with a ‘faith-seeking’ understanding, not motivated to convince or persuade people. Anselm uses the fool of the Psalms to begin the premise of his argument. The ‘fool’ of the Psalms declares that ‘in his heart, there is no God.’ Anselm criticizes the fool by arguing that the fool conceives the concept of God in his mind, but he paradoxically refuses its existence. 1st version of the Ontological Argument 1) God is something ‘than that which nothing greater can be conceived’ (God is the greatest being that we, as humans, can conceive in our minds.)
Descartes' argument in the Meditations is circular. Discuss. In trying to prove the existence of God, Descartes will, of course, have to rely on what he can clearly and distinctly perceive, because this is the only way he can know anything. However, Descartes also needs to prove that God exists for us to know what we clearly and distinctly perceive. This leads to the famous objection that he uses the existence of God to establish his doctrine of clear and distinct ideas, and that he uses his doctrine of clear and distinct ideas to establish the existence of God: his argument is circular.