Starter: Mix-PairShare 1. 2. 3. 4. Students mix. I call “Pair”. Pair up nearest person. High 5. Not got partner raise hands to find each other. I ask a question – pair share. Lesson Aim To learn about some of the criticisms of the Cosmological Argument. David Hume 17111776 1. 2. 3. Why presume the need for a cause? Why look for an explanation for the whole? Is the concept of a necessary being meaningful? 1. 2. Hume, argued against a ‘First Cause’ for the universe. He maintained that the fact that everything within the universe has a cause does not necessarily mean that the universe itself must have a cause. Why assume the need for a cause for the whole chain?? Argument is a posteriori (so begins familiar to us) – but makes conclusions about things outside our experience!!! Hume argued that we have no experience of universes being made, and we cannot speak meaningfully about the creation of the universe. To move from ‘everything that we observe has a cause’ to the ‘universe has a cause’ is too big a leap in logic. If things within need explanation, why assume the uni whole does? BR point. Furthermore, that opens up another issue – if reason seek explan 4 univ as a whole, then reason to do so for God. Why God different? 3. Like BR, after him, Hume argued that the notion of a NB is inconsistent. There is “no being the non-existence of which is inconceivable”. Argument guilty what is called – “inductive leap of logic” – why do we need a 1st cause for the whole chain?? Nothing in premises lead identify God, a necessary being, as the cause. Even if it were reasonable – why call it God? Premises not lead logically to that conclusion. Immanuel Kant Central criticism – challenged notion of necessary existence. Necessity cannot attach itself contingent concept like existence. He rejects this idea. Not move from physical premises (we experience) to metaphysical conclusions. Kant – a) Existence is not a property. B) Existence is a synthetic matter. Hume also challenged this notion – no being must necessarily exist – even if it does why call it God? Subject criticism not only field philosophy also science Anthony Kenny 1931 Kenny bases his observations on Newton’s Laws of Motion and noted his First Law of Motion. A body’s velocity would remain unchanged unless some other forcesuch as friction-acted upon it. Kenny thinks that Newton’s law proves Aquinas wrong. It is possible that an object can be in one of two states – stationary or moving at a constant rate- without any external force acting on it. This would appear to mean that Aquinas’s statement that nothing moves itself is incorrect. Modern science Further challenges to Aquinas’s ideas regarding the uncaused cause come from subatomic physics. Particles have been observed to disappear and reappear without any apparent cause. The Big Bang theory appears to support the idea of a time when the universe did not exist. Since it is not possible to add to a number of days (Ed Miller) the universe appears to be finite. However, some say that the Big Bang did not mark the beginning of the universe, but simply the beginning of this particular phase of the universe. Some scientists argue for an oscillating universe, where this is only one of a series of expanding and contracting universes. Does the argument have value? A posteriori argument – draws on universally available evidence. Long-lasting appeal – offers way of explaining the universe. Quote Swinburne. Puzzled why there is something rather than nothing?? Argument strong. Conclusions… CA fatally flawed relies on outdated scientific thinking of Aristotle and the postulation of a necessary being. Thinking superseded. No substantial proof believing in God – certainly not the Christian concept of God. Illogical jump – name God. Aquinas’ version even an arg for polytheism – no 6th argument cause all one God – could five?? Premises only lead to postulate God as explanation – if we are not satisfied this conclusion argument fails (atheist not forced to theism). 1. Give an outline of some of the criticisms of the Cosmological argument. 2. Do you think the criticisms refute the theory as a whole??? Mind Map P: Every event must have a cause. P: The universe is an event. C: God is the cause of the universe. A posteriori, inductive Conclusions Long History – Plato, Aquinas…. Cosmological Argument Most pop Aquinas – ……. …… John L Mackie 19171981 ????? Mackie responded to the criticisms of Aquinas (in pack). Modern science and mathematics had moved on from the medieval world-view, which was very hierarchical. He defended the idea that there cannot be an infinite regression of causes. It is not logical to think of a railway train consisting simply of an infinite number of carriages; the train must ultimately have an engine to drive it. Nor can you have a watch which has a movement determined by an infinite sequence of cogs and springs; the movement must begin with the mainspring and end with the hands on the face of the watch.