Argument 1
Argument 2
Argument 3
1. Cake is food.
1. All Greeks are human.
1. Nothing is better than eternal happiness.
2. Food is delicious. 3. Therefore cake is delicious.
2. All humans are mortal 3. Therefore all Greeks are mortal.
2. A KFC is better than nothing 3. Therefore a KFC is better than eternal happiness.
To understand what is meant by cause and effect To be able to explain the Cosmological Argument To start to assess how successful the argument is in answering our question: Where does the universe come from?
•In your groups you must line up your dominos •They must be close enough together to be able to fall if pushed. •If your dominos get knocked down you must start again. •The first team to line up all their dominos wins. •Do not touch anyone else’s dominos. •Good luck!!!
You must now try to knock down the dominos BUT there are rules....... You MUST NOT • Touch ANY dominos with ANYTHING (this includes blowing) • Touch the table, chairs or surrounding area. • Stamp, or move about aggressively near the dominos. • Good luck!!
The mission was impossible because.... For the dominos to fall it something must happen to cause the process.....
It must have a cause
Effect
Cause
Effect
Cause
(1225-74) Catholic Monk Summa Theologica Develop an argument to try and prove the existence of God
Does the universe exist?
THEN IT MUST HAVE A CAUSE!
Thomas Aquinas said everything in our experience is caused by something else. The carriages of a train only move because there is a first cause – the engine. If you saw a train carriage moving along the tracks you would know there was an engine at the front; it could not be otherwise. In the same way, for him, when he looked at the universe he knew it must have been started by a great power – as a Christian he thought this was God.
Summarise what you have learnt so far. You must include: • Logic • Cause and effect • Aquinas • Premise • Universe • God
• Does everything have to have a beginning? Why? • Can you think of anything that was not caused by something else? • What do you think was the cause of the universe? • What does Science mean when it talks about the ‘Big Bang Theory’? What caused the Big Bang?
The argument is based on the claim that everything existing in the universe exists because it was caused by something else; that ‘something’ was itself also caused by something else. However, it is necessary for something to have started this all off – something which did not and was not itself caused/created. That ‘something’ is God.
Arguments for the Existence of God
Cosmological Argument = Causation (they are one and the same!) This argument also relies on something called ‘cause and effect’. Everything that happens (effect) must have something that has made it happen (cause).
St Thomas Aquinas 1.Nothing happens by itself, everything needs a cause
2. Therefore the universe must have a cause.
3. Only God could have caused a universe to come about.
4.Therefor e, as the universe exists, there must be a God.
Making it simple
Cause- God
Event – Big Bang
Arguments for the Existence of God 1.Nothing happens by itself, everything needs a cause
2. Therefore the universe must have a cause.
3. Only God could have caused a universe to come about.
4.Therefor e, as the universe exists, there must be a God.
What are the arguments for and against? Aquinas suggested there needed to be a first cause (a prime mover). He also suggested that this prime mover needed to be an unmoved mover. Does the idea of an unmoved mover, break premise number one?
The three ways of the cosmological Argument are as follows: Motion Cause Contingency
• • • •
Things that move must be moved by something Things cannot move themselves Things are evidently in motion There cannot be an infinite chain of movers (infinite regression) • There must be a first, unmoved mover that causes motion in all things • This first, unmoved mover we call God.
“...There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself: for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible...” Therefore it is necessary to admit a first cause • An infinite chain of causes cannot be, as there would be no first cause, and without a first cause, there would be no subsequent causes – there would be NOTHING. • However, there IS SOMETHING (lots of things).
• • • •
The universe exists and is constantly changing Everything in existence has a cause Causes must come before their effects A chain of causes and effects cannot regress to infinity • There must be a first cause, which is not in itself CAUSED – an uncaused causer. • This first, uncaused causer is GOD.
• There are things which are both possible to be and not to be. • Matter in the universe is contingent – it is caused and comes into being • Therefore, at one point in time, there was nothing in existence • Without an uncaused causer, it would be impossible for anything to start to exist, and even now there would be NOTHING • However, we know there is SOMETHING • We therefore need to accept a being whose existence is necessary (NOT contingent on anything else) • Without the necessary existence of this being, nothing would exist • This being whose existence is necessary is GOD.
It cannot be explained without reference to CAUSES outside of itself as it is CONTINGENT
• Contingent – depends on something else for its existence/truth. It COULD be false. e.g. If you sunbathe without sun protection, you will get sunburnt. Give another example of something contingent • Necessary – does not depend on anything else to exist/be true. To deny it would be a contradiction. It COULD NOT be false. e.g. 1+2=3 Give another example of something necessary
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 wouldn’t exist.
Therefore, only the existence of a first, necessary, uncaused cause can explain its origin. The cosmological argument wants a whole, complete explanation. Therefore‌
• Many Christians believe that the cosmological argument is supported by the creation account in Genesis. • This account states that before the universe was created only God existed and at God’s command the process of creation began.
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.” Genesis 1:1-3
1. All things are moved by others, and that mover is moved by something else. You cannot have an infinite chain, so there must be an unmoved mover: GOD 2. All things are caused and since nothing can be its own cause (logically impossible) there must be a first cause (uncaused causer) on which all others depend: GOD 3. Everything which we can point to is dependent upon factors beyond itself and thus is contingent. These factors demand an ultimate explanation in the form of a necessary being, dependent on nothing outside itself: GOD
• It starts with something that we can all agree on, that the universe does exist. • It uses scientific principles (the law of cause and effect) to work to God.
Bertrand Russell and David Hume
There is no creation story in the Buddhist scriptures. Buddhists do not really concern themselves with such big stories like the worlds creation, as they say you could think about it for a lifetime and never find an answer. They are more interested in living a good life in the present than thinking about the past and where things come from.
Buddhists liken this idea to being Shot by an arrow: people don’t waste time wondering who made the arrow and where the feathers came from – rather they urgently seek to have it removed. Note down the Buddhist view on the world’s creation. How do you think a Buddhist would respond to the cosmological argument?
Bertrand Russell said the universe does not need an explanation. Can you think of anything else that does not need to be explained?
“The universe is just there, and that’s all” Do you agree that we should just accept the universe’s existence, or is it ok to question it?
Hume’s criticisms against the First Cause Argument
Just because everything else has a cause and effect, it doesn’t mean the universe has to…
You MUST be able to explain who put forward criticisms against the first cause argument
Hume’s criticisms against the First Cause Argument
Things outside our world could work totally differently‌
You SHOULD be able to explain a number of criticisms against the first cause argument
Hume’s criticisms against the First Cause Argument
There are other explanations aside from just Aquinas‌
You SHOULD be able to explain a number of criticisms against the first cause argument
Hume’s criticisms against the First Cause Argument
Maybe things have existed back to infinity‌
You SHOULD be able to explain a number of criticisms against the first cause argument
Hume’s criticisms against the First Cause Argument
Why can God be explained by himself but the universe cannot?...
You SHOULD be able to explain a number of criticisms against the first cause argument
Hume’s criticisms against the First Cause Argument
If God is perfect, why is the universe full of imperfections?...
You SHOULD be able to explain a number of criticisms against the first cause argument
Hume’s criticisms against the First Cause Argument
Is this universe the attempts of a young God which he got wrong?...
Hume’s criticisms against the First Cause Argument
Just because the universe might need a cause, does this mean that the cause is infinite?...
“The existence of the universe proves that God exists.” In support Vs. In opposition
• Explain the cosmological argument (4 marks) • “The existence of the universe proves that God exists.” Do you agree? Give reasons for your answer showing that you have thought about more than one point of view. • (6 Marks)
• On your post it note you must give this argument a mark out of ten and a reason why. • You will then come to the board and stick your post it in the correct place.
Criticising the First Cause Argument Task: Write a newspaper/magazine article criticising the first cause argument.
You are writing from the perspective of Hume, directing his arguments against Aquinas. Remember to include: • A brief explanation of what Aquinas’ argument is • Some of the major criticisms against Aquinas You want to convince your reader that the first cause argument is not correct! You SHOULD be able to explain a number of criticisms against the first cause argument