cosmological 1

Proving that ‘god’ (or something) existseasier than it soundsmaybe

Sleepless productions

first of all...• does it even matter?

• should you even care?

• would it change who you were if you knew God was there?

• one minute super quick answer in pairs


Let’s start with science...• you see a crater, what does that mean has happened?

• if you see a new table in cdt, what has happened?

• there’s a burnt out car in the school car park?

• someone’s holding a ice pack to their head?Sleepless productions

Let’s start with science...• if you see a bullet fly past you, what does that mean has happened?

• if you see one of your mates with a black eye, what has happened?

• or someone comes into school looking a lot browner than usual?

• someone’s eyes are all black because their mascara has run?Sleepless productions

science?• well almost...

• everything has a cause doesn’t it?

• or does it?

• pairs

• 3minutes


dominoes• if everything has a cause

• then every cause must have a cause (as every cause is a separate thing)

• so your mates girlfriend/boyfriend dumped her because she’d been with someone else at the weekend.

• and that would be caused by something else as well...


reactions test game• silence is the key

• if you move before i do, you lose a point

• anyone looks round, you lose a point


simple versionyou are going to learn eventually that there is not only one cosmological argument

in fact you’re going to learn about loads

some that work better than others

so cosmological argumentsbut for starters, this is an easy version.

We’ll call this the causal version of the c.a.Sleepless productions

the argumentP1 Everything has a cause.

P2 Nothing is its own cause

P3 A chain of causes cannot be infinite

P4 there must be a ‘first cause’

C this is GODSleepless productions

so in the game..who was god?


so in the game..

who was the big bang?


so in the game..

and all the rest of you were all of history...


an infinite chain

‘hanging’ in the sky...

goes on for ever it seems like...


you are all expert critical

thinkers...do you find each of these

premises acceptable

make a couple of sentences on each one, reasons.

and conclusion, does it follow?

TITLE: The Cosmological Argument; GUT REACTIONS


Cosmological Argument -

Week 2Introduction to metaphysics

Discussion of argument as conceived last week -

potential problems, fallacies & the like.

Introduce the Kalam cosmological argument


gut feelings...

god exists, yeah?


premise 1

• a priori/a posteriori?

• any exceptions?

• in fact it’s pretty well established physics...

• laws of thermodynamics

• things only change when something causes them to...

Everything has a cause.


premise 2


• cause they happen at different times

• any exceptions?

• Kant’s cushion?

Nothing is its own cause


premise 3


• this is a really big deal this time...

• how could you prove this?

A chain of causes cannot be infinite


premise 4


• think about it a bit more

• no first cause = no second cause = no third cause = nothing.

• does it follow if we accept the other premises?

• what about if everything has a cause?

there must be a ‘first cause’


“then what caused god?”

aka the schoolboy objection

but does it work?


conclusion


•why would you think it was GOD?

•what can you tell about this ‘GOD’?

this is GOD!


the Kalam argumentMetaphysics - The Cosmological Arguments


QuickTime™ and aH.264 decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

“evidence” videoSleepless productions

who is the main proponent of a cosmological argument alive

today?

what does ex nihilo mean?

write out his argument in a premise/conclusion form.

how does he validate his second premise?

questions




video Kalam IntroductionSleepless productions

why did people stop believing the universe was eternal?

what did hubble discover about other galaxies? why does it matter?

what did it mean for those who believed the universe was eternal?

what is singularity? what began here?

what does background radiation suggest?

questions


the kalam argumentP1 Everything that begins to

exist has a cause.

P2 The universe began to exist.

P3 The Universe must have a cause.

C sounds like GODSleepless productions

stephen hawking

It really does look like the universe did have a start point (and so is finite).

[well maybe]Sleepless productions

HW: what evidence is there for the big bang?

questions


standard higher notes


st thomas aquinas

‘i can prove to you that god exists’


uncaused causer

“sounds like a pretty good description of God.”

hmmm... hmmm... sounds sounds

familiar... familiar...

it must be something it must be something eternal... something eternal... something

really powerful... really powerful... something outside of something outside of time...and most of all, time...and most of all,

something totally something totally NECESSARYNECESSARY


uncaused causer

“sounds like a pretty good description of God.”

everything everything with a cause, i with a cause, i

will call will call contingent... contingent...

...and this first ...and this first cause I will call cause I will call

NECESSARY, NECESSARY, because it doesn’t because it doesn’t

depend on depend on anything else for anything else for

its existence.its existence.Sleepless productions

a problem?‘but don’t premise 1 & 4 contradict each other?’

hold on a hold on a second...second...

let’s think let’s think about it about it

carefully....carefully....

the first three premises are like a problem4 is presented as an alternative to premise 1if 1 &4 are okay then, the argument goes, we

must accept 4


but what about?

“if god created the universe, who created

god?”

ah haaa...ah haaa...but...but...

that is that is another another

BAD BAD objection...objection...

the whole point is that Aquinas says God is Necessaryif something created God, then God is NOT NecessaryGod is only contingent, and we still have the problem!


a proper objection...

is there a fallacy of composition to be found

here?

ah haaa...ah haaa...but... but...

there is a there is a bit of a bit of a

problem...problem...

can you remember what that means?something to do with parts and the whole

Celtic football Club has legs...

there is a there is a bit of a bit of a

problem...problem...


a fallacy of composition.

..all of the part of an object (O) have a given property

(P)

this doesn’t this doesn’t mean that O mean that O

has has property Pproperty P

can you remember what that means?something to do with parts and the wholeCeltic football Club has legs...Human body is

invisible?

we could we could also use the also use the

word word EQUIVOCATIEQUIVOCATI

ONON


how does that fit with what we have been talking about?

let’s find out...

questions Sleepless productions



Equivocation what’s it all about? - KalamSleepless productions

big bang isn’t a causebecause nothing can be

its own cause


and this cause...well it’s ‘god’...


you are all expert critical

thinkers...for homework, you need to

have a shot at the basic argument...

give it the NAB treatment...

is it valid? what about its form?


conclusionwhy is there something

rather than nothing?


if this is truly

inconclusiveand i have another reason

for believing that god might exist, that might just tilt the balance that

way...


cosmological 1

Technology