DOC PREVIEW
UConn PHIL 1101 - Cosmological Arguments
Type Lecture Note
Pages 2

This preview shows page 1 out of 2 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 2 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 2 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

Phil 1101 1st Edition Lecture 2 Outline of Last Lecture I. Cosmological ArgumentsII. Types of ArgumentIII. Deductive ArgumentOutline of Current Lecture I. Cosmological ArgumentsII. What do we mean by “God”III. Two bad cosmological arguments NOT made by AquinasIV. The casual argument of AquinasV. Is this argument valid?VI. Is this argument sound?Current LectureI. Cosmological Arguments: two partsa. An argument that there must be a first causeb. So there must be a GodII. What do we mean by “God”a. Common, minimal definition of God:i. All-knowingii. All-powerfuliii. All-goodIII. Two bad cosmological arguments NOT made by Aquinas:a. Everything has a causeAn infinite series of causes is impossibleTherefore, there must be a first, uncaused cause.i. What’s wrong with it? The first premise contradicts the conclusionb. Everything has a causeAn infinite series of causes is impossibleTherefore, there must be a first self-caused, caused.i. If x causes y, then x must come before y.ii. God would have to exist before he existed in order to exist (conclusion)IV. The casual argument of AquinasThese notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute.a. At least some things comes into existence (x)Whatever comes into existence must have been caused to come into existence (y)An infinite series of past causes is impossible (z)Therefore, there was a first cause (z1)b. Z1…z→y→xi. The first cause would have to be something that didn’t come into existence (timeless)V. Is this argument valid?a. Yes. If all the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.VI. Is this argument sound?a. Is premise 3, in particular, true?i. Aquinas’ defense principal: “To take away the cause is to take away the effect”ii. If past causes were infinite, there would be no first cause. But if you take away the first cause, you take away its effects. Yet since we obviously do exist right now as effects of the past, it follows that an infinite series of past causes must be impossible.iii. Don’t want to assume what you’re trying to


View Full Document
Download Cosmological Arguments
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Cosmological Arguments and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Cosmological Arguments 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?