2695636
Description
Mind Map by Jessica Anne, updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by Jessica Anne
about 9 years ago
|
|
Key Criticisms of the Cosmological
Argument and Possible Responses
- Infinte Regress is not Possible
- The possibility of infinite regress :
The Ocillating Theory. If infinte
regress is not possible then who
caused God?
- Big Bang Theory is preferred. God is not one more
in series but something outside of sequence. The
evidence leads to God having that characteristic of
all actuality.
- Big Bang Theory is preferred. God is not one more
in series but something outside of sequence. The
evidence leads to God having that characteristic of
all actuality.
- The possibility of infinite regress :
The Ocillating Theory. If infinte
regress is not possible then who
caused God?
- The universe is 'just there' - It
provides no explanation
- Possibility of universe as a brute fact. Rejection
of principle of sufficient reason. No explanation
needed - just a brute fact.
- Explanation sought in every other area of
enquiry. If there is explanation then it
could be God. God is the explanation that
requires no further explanation.
- Explanation sought in every other area of
enquiry. If there is explanation then it
could be God. God is the explanation that
requires no further explanation.
- Possibility of universe as a brute fact. Rejection
of principle of sufficient reason. No explanation
needed - just a brute fact.
- The universe must have a cause
- Because an event in the universe has a
cause, it doesn't mean that the universe
itself must therefore has a cause (fallacy of
composition).
- Composition is not always a
fallacy e.g. every part of a
silver coin is silver, therefore
the whole coin is silver.
- Composition is not always a
fallacy e.g. every part of a
silver coin is silver, therefore
the whole coin is silver.
- Because an event in the universe has a
cause, it doesn't mean that the universe
itself must therefore has a cause (fallacy of
composition).
- Identity of necessary being as God.
- Why should the identity of the necessary
being equate to God?
- Aquinas never claimed the necessary being showed the
attributes of God in the Christian tradition, but it is consistent
with the idea of a transcendent being.
- Aquinas never claimed the necessary being showed the
attributes of God in the Christian tradition, but it is consistent
with the idea of a transcendent being.
- Why should the identity of the necessary
being equate to God?
- Argument based on Observation
- It draws a conclusion that goes beyond the evidence. David Hume argued that we
could not have knowledge about concepts such as cause and necessary beings as
they were not open to the empirical approach
- We distinguish
between cause and
coincidence. Reason
also leads to
knowledge.
- We distinguish
between cause and
coincidence. Reason
also leads to
knowledge.
- It draws a conclusion that goes beyond the evidence. David Hume argued that we
could not have knowledge about concepts such as cause and necessary beings as
they were not open to the empirical approach
Want to create your own Mind Maps for free with GoConqr? Learn more.