lecture 7

Cosmological
Arguments, Ontological
Arguments, Teleological
Arguments

Instructor: Aiman Nisar

1.Cosmological • The cosmological argument posits that the universe's existence
requires a cause, which is identified as God.
Argument
• Rooted in Aristotle and Aquinas's ideas, the argument examines why
there is "something" rather than "nothing."
• The argument typically takes the form of the Kalam Cosmological
Argument, which has two premises:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
• From these premises, the argument concludes that the universe must
have a cause that transcends space and time, commonly attributed to
God.
• This reasoning suggests a first cause or unmoved mover, a necessary
being that initiated existence without being caused itself.
• Critics often debate the necessity of an uncaused first cause, questioning
whether the universe could be self-contained or cyclically caused.
• Cosmological arguments start from the observation that everything
depends on something else for its existence. For example, you depended
on your parents in order to exist, and they depended on their parents,
and so on.
• Cosmological arguments then apply this to the existence of the universe
itself. The argument is that the universe depends on something else to
exist: God.
Cosmologi
1. Kalam Cosmological Argument: The
cal argument states that the universe began to
Argument exist, and therefore, it must have a cause.
Example For instance, philosopher William Lane
Craig uses this version to argue that since
all physical events have causes, and
because the universe cannot cause itself,
the cause must be something beyond the
universe ultimately, a timeless and
spaceless God. He often cites Big Bang
cosmology to show that the universe has a
finite beginning.
• It says:
• Whatever begins to exist has a cause
• The universe began to exist
• Therefore, the universe has a cause
2. Thomas Aquinas’s First Cause used the example of motion in his "Five Ways,"
arguing that since everything in motion was set in motion by something else, there
must be an original, unmoved mover: God. For example, he points to everyday motion
(like a stick moving a stone) to illustrate that there must be a first cause.
• Thomas Aquinas gave five different versions of the cosmological argument.
1. Argument from motion
2. Argument from causation
3. Contingency argument (a future event which is possible but cannot be predicted
with certainty).
4. Argument from motion
5. Aquinas’ first way is the argument from motion.
• “It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion It
is [impossible that something] should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should
move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that
by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in
motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity,
because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover;
seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the
first mover. Therefore, it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no
other; and this everyone understands to be God.”
• Some things in the world are in motion E.g. a football rolling along the
ground
• Things can’t move themselves, so whatever is in motion must have
been put in motion by something else E.g. someone kicked the ball
• If A is put in motion by B, then something else (C) must have put B in
motion, and so on
• If this chain goes on infinitely, then there is no first mover
• If there is no first mover, then there is no other mover, and so nothing
would be in motion
• But things are in motion
• Therefore, there must be a first mover
• The first mover is God
 Descartes’ Cosmological Argument

• Descartes’ version of the cosmological argument is a lot more long-winded than the Kalam argument or any of
Aquinas’.
• I am a thinking thing with the idea of God – what is the cause of my existence?
• Option 1: Myself
• I can’t be the cause of my own existence because if I was, I would have given myself all perfections (i.e. I would have
caused myself to be omnipotent, omniscient, etc. In other words, I would have made myself God).
• Option 2: I have always existed
• I can’t always have existed, because then I would be aware of this. Plus, there has to be something that sustains my
existence – the fact that I existed a moment ago does not at all guarantee that I should continue existing.
• Option 3: My parents or some other being less than God
• My parents might be the cause of me being born, but they don’t sustain my existence – i.e. they don’t keep me in
existence moment to moment.
• Plus, there can’t be an infinite regress of causes: If my parents were the cause of my existence, what caused them?
And so on.
• So, whatever ultimately is the cause of my existence, must be the cause of its own existence.
• Whatever is the cause of its own existence is God.
• So, this only leaves option 4: God is the ultimate cause of my existence.
Problem in an argument
(against their POV)
HUME’S OBJECTIONS TO CAUSATION

• Hume claim that ‘everything has a cause’:

• Matter of fact: ‘Everything has a cause’ cannot be known as a matter
of fact either, says Hume. We never actually experience causation we
just see event A happen and then event B happen after. Even if we see
B follow A, a million times, we never experience A causing B, just the
‘constant conjunction’ of A and B.
• Further, in the specific case of the creation of the universe, we only ever
experience event B (i.e. the continued existence of the universe) and
never what came before (i.e. the thing that caused the universe to
exist).
 RUSSELL: FALLACY OF COMPOSITION

• Bertrand Russell argues that The fallacy of composition is an invalid interpretation that
because parts of something have a certain property, the entire thing must also have this
property. Examples:
• Just because all the players on a football team are good, this doesn’t guarantee the team is
good. For example, the players might not work well together.
• Applying this to the cosmological argument, we can raise a similar objection to Hume’s
above just because everything within the universe has a cause, doesn’t guarantee that the
universe itself has a cause.
• And if everything within the universe didn’t exist, then the universe itself wouldn’t exist
either (because that’s all the universe is: the collection of things that make it up)
• So the universe itself exists contingently, not just the stuff within it
• And so the universe itself requires sufficient reason to explain its existence
• IS THE FIRST CAUSE GOD?
• Aquinas’ first and second ways and the Kalam argument only show that there is a
first cause. But they don’t show that this first cause is God.
 2. Ontological Argument

• The ontological argument, formulated by Anselm of Canterbury, is an a priori

argument grounded in logic rather than observation.
• Anselm defined God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." The
argument posits that:
• If God, the greatest conceivable being, exists in the mind, He must also exist in
reality.
• Since a God that exists in reality is "greater" than a God that exists solely in the mind,
God must exist outside of mere thought.
• The ontological arguments are unique in that they are the only arguments for God’s
existence that use a priori reasoning. All ontological arguments are deductive arguments.
• The ontological argument has been reformulated by philosophers like Descartes and
Leibniz, with Descartes asserting that the concept of a perfect being includes existence
as a necessary property.
 Ontological Argument Example

• Anselm’s Argument: Anselm argued that the concept of God as “that than which nothing greater can
be conceived” means God must exist in reality.
• For instance, he uses the analogy of imagining a perfect island: if it’s truly perfect, it would need to exist
to be considered the greatest island. Likewise, the greatest possible being, God, must exist.
• Hence, even the fool is convinced that something exists in the understanding, at least, then which
nothing greater can be comprehended. For, when he hears of this, he understands it. And whatever is
understood, exists in the understanding.
• His argument can be summarized as:
1. By definition, God is a being greater than which cannot be conceived
2. We can comprehensibly conceive of such a being i.e. the concept is rational
3. It is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in the mind
4. Therefore, God must exist
• In other words, imagine two beings:
• One is said to be maximally great in every way but does not exist.
• The other is maximally great in every way and does exist.
 DESCARTES’ ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
• René Descartes argued that existence is a necessary trait of a perfect being.
For example, he claimed that we cannot conceive of a triangle without three
sides or a mountain without a valley. In the same way, we cannot conceive of a
perfect being without existence.
• Descartes offers his own version of the ontological argument:
1.I have the idea of God
2.The idea of God is the idea of a supremely perfect being
3.A supremely perfect being does not lack any perfection
4.Existence is a perfection
5.Therefore, God exists
• This argument is very similar to Anselm’s, except it uses the concept of a perfect
being rather than a being greater than which cannot be conceived.
• Descartes argues this shows that ‘God does not exist’ is a self-contradiction.
• Hume uses this claim as the basis for his objection to the ontological argument.
 Problem in an
argument (against
their POV)
 AGAINST: NORMAN MALCOLM’S
ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

• Malcolm accepts that Descartes and Anselm (at least as presented above) are wrong.
• Instead, Malcolm argues that it’s not existence that is a perfection, but the logical impossibility of non-
existence (necessary existence, in other words).
• This (necessary existence) is a predicate, argument is as follows:
1. Either God exists or does not exist
2. God cannot come into existence or go out of existence
3. If God exists, God cannot cease to exist
4. Therefore, if God exists, God’s existence is necessary
5. Therefore, if God does not exist, God’s existence is impossible
6. Therefore, God’s existence is either necessary or impossible
7. God’s existence is impossible only if the concept of God is self-contradictory
8. The concept of God is not self-contradictory
9. Therefore, God’s existence is not impossible
10.Therefore, God exists necessarily
• Malcolm’s argument essentially
boils down to:
• God’s existence is either
necessary or impossible
• God’s existence is not
impossible
• Therefore, God's existence is
necessary
 3. Teleological Argument

• The teleological argument, or argument from design, observes order and

purpose in the universe, suggesting the existence of a designer, traditionally
identified as God.
• William Paley famously compared this to finding a watch on the ground; its
complexity and purpose imply a watchmaker.
• In this way, the intricate structures within nature (e.g., the human eye or the laws
of physics) indicate purposeful design. Modern versions of this argument often
appeal to the fine-tuning of the universe, suggesting that the precise conditions
necessary for life cannot be mere coincidence.
• However, critics like David Hume argue that apparent design does not necessarily
imply a designer, suggesting that natural processes (e.g., evolution) could account
for this complexity. Hume also questioned the assumption that the designer must
be a single, perfect being, leaving room for alternate explanations.
 3. Teleological
Argument Example

• Fine-Tuning Argument: Modern

teleological arguments often cite the fine-
tuning of the universe. For example, the exact
values of physical constants (like gravity) are
such that if they were even slightly different,
life couldn’t exist. This precision suggests that
the universe was intentionally calibrated by an
intelligent designer.
• Each example illustrates these arguments’
reliance on causation, logical necessity, or
perceived design in nature to argue for God’s
existence. Critics often challenge these by
questioning the assumptions or interpretations
of causality, necessity, or purpose.
• Paley’s Watchmaker Analogy: William Paley famously argued
that if one were to find a watch in a field, its complexity would
imply a designer. In the same way, he claimed that the complexity
of natural life (like the human eye) implies a purposeful designer,
i.e., God.
• William Paley wasn’t the first to propose a teleological argument for
the existence of God, but his version is perhaps the most famous.
• Paley Teleological argument watch Paley compares man-made
objects, such as a watch, with certain aspects of nature, such as a
stone. If you found a stone in a field, you might assume it had just
been there forever. But that explanation doesn’t work for the
watch.
• The reason for this is that a watch, unlike the stone, has many
parts organized for a purpose. Paley says this is the hallmark of
design:
• “When we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what
we could not discover in the stone) that its several parts
are framed and put together for a purpose, e.g. that they
are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that
motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day.”
• Nature and aspects of nature, such as the human eye, are
composed of many parts. These parts are organized for a purpose
in the case of the eye, to see.
• So, like the watch, nature has the hallmarks of design but “with the
difference, on the side of nature, of being greater and more”. And
for something to be designed, it must have an equally impressive
designer.
• Paley says this designer is God.
PROBLEM IN AN
ARGUMENT
(AGAINST THEIR
POV)
 • Charles Darwin’s (1809-1882) theory of evolution by natural
selection explains how complex organisms complete with parts organized for a
purpose can emerge from nature without a designer.
• For example, it may seem that God designed giraffes to have long necks so they
could reach leaves in high trees. But the long necks of giraffes can be
explained without a designer, for example:
• Competition for food is tough
• An animal that cannot acquire enough food will die before it can breed and
AGAINST: produce offspring
• An animal with a (random genetic mutation for a) neck that’s 1cm longer than

DARWIN: everyone else’s will be able to access 1cm more food

• This competitive advantage makes it more likely to survive and produce

EVOLUTIO offspring
• The offspring are likely to inherit the gene for a longer neck, making them more

N BY likely to survive and reproduce as well

• Longer necked-animals become more common as a result

NATURAL • The environment becomes more competitive as more and more animals can
reach the 1cm higher leaves

SELECTION • An animal with a neck 2cm longer has the advantage in this newly competitive
environment
• Repeat process over hundreds of millions of years until you have modern
day giraffes
• The key idea is that given enough time and genetic mutations it
is inevitable that animals and plants will adapt to their environment, thus
creating the appearance of design.
• This directly undermines Paley’s claim that anything that has parts organized to
serve a purpose must be designed.
 Ontological Teleological Cosmological
God exists? Yes Yes Yes

Summary God must exist by The universe must be There must be a first
definition designed cause
Versions •Anselm •Hume •Aquinas
•Descartes •Paley •The Kalam argument
•Descartes

Problems •Malcom •Darwin •Hume

•Russell