Question Database: God and Religion
Cosmological arguments
(1) The second way is based on the nature of causation. (2) In the observable world causes are found to be ordered in series; (3) we never observe, nor ever could, something causing itself, for (4) this would mean it preceded itself, and (5) this is not possible. (6) Such a series of causes must however stop somewhere .... (7) One is therefore forced to suppose some first cause, to which everyone gives the name of ‘God’.
Which of the numbered statements in the passage represents the main conclusion of the argument?
A. (7)
B. (1)
C. (5)
D. (6)
Which of the numbered statements in the passage represent premises of the argument?
A. (1), (2) and (3)
B. (2) and (3) but not (6)
C. (2), (3) and (6)
D. (3) and (6) but not (2)
Answer: A, C
Topic:
Aquinas, second way, cosmological argument
Course Level:
First year, intro. to philosophy
Notes:
1. Some things exist and their existence is caused. (2)
2. Nothing causes itself. (3)
3. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes. (6)
Therefore:
4. There is a first cause of existence – something that causes other things, but is not itself caused – and that thing is God. (7)
Which of the following statements about the validity of this argument do you think are correct?
A. The argument is valid because if all the premises were true, the conclusion would have to be true.
B. The argument is invalid because there are some things which exist, but do not have any cause.
C. The argument is invalid because there is no contradiction in the idea of an infinite regress of causes, so an infinite regress of causes is possible.
D. The argument is invalid because it does not show that the first cause has all the necessary attributes of God.
Answer: D
Topic:
Aquinas, second way, cosmological argument
Course Level:
First year, intro. to philosophy
Notes:
1. Some things exist and their existence is caused.
2. Nothing causes itself.
3. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes.
Therefore:
4. There is a first cause of existence – something that causes other things, but is not itself caused.
Therefore:
C. God exists.
Does 4 follow from 1-3? That is, does the conclusion that there is a first cause (whether or not that first cause is God) follow from premises 1, 2 and 3?
A. Yes. IF Premises 1, 2 and 3 were all true, THEN the conclusion that there is a first cause would follow.
B. No. The conclusion does not follow because something could be the cause of itself.
C. No. The conclusion does not follow because there might be something that exists without having any cause.
D. No. The conclusion does not follow because there could be a sequence of causes that loops back on itself.
Answer: D
Topic:
Aquinas, second way, cosmological argument
Course Level:
First year, intro. to philosophy
Notes:
Which of the following additional premises could be added to the argument to deal with the problem of loops? That is, which of the following assumptions could be added to the argument in order to deal with this objection?
A. If A causes B, then B does not cause A.
B. If A causes B and B causes C, then A causes C.
C. An infinite sequence of causes, each of which cause the next one in the sequence is impossible.
D. A circle of causes each of which causes the next one in the circle, is impossible.
Hold up more than one card if you think more than one answer is correct.
Answer: B and D
Topic:
Aquinas, second way, cosmological argument
Course Level:
First year, intro. to philosophy
Notes:
Answer A does not rule out loops by itself: an anti-symmetric and irreflexive relation, provided it is not transitive, can have loops of three or more objects such as: Rab, Rbc, Rca. So anti-symmetry (A) does not by itself rule out loops. (It does rule out two element loops like Rab, Rba). Transitivity, combined with irreflexivity does rule out loops however.
1. Some things exist and their existence is caused (Premise)
2. Nothing causes itself. (Premise)
3. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes. (Premise)
4. There cannot be a circle of causes. (Unstated Premise)
Therefore:
5. There is a first cause of existence – something that causes other things, but is not itself caused.
Therefore:
C. God exists.
Which of the following statements concerning the validity of this modified argument do you think are correct?
A. IF premises 1, 2, 3 and 4 are all true, the conclusion that there is a first cause of existence must be true (though the argument still does not establish that the first cause must be God).
B. IF premises 1, 2, 3 and 4 are all true, the conclusion follows: there is a first cause and that thing is God.
C. The argument still fails to show that there must be a first cause: even if premises 1, 2, 3 and 4 were all true, it could still be false that there is a first cause.
Answer: C
Topic:
Aquinas, second way, cosmological argument
Course Level:
First year, intro. to philosophy
Notes:
So far, the argument only shows that given anything that exists, there must be a finite sequence of causes leading backwards and terminating in a first cause. But if we start with a different object and trace its causal history back, we might end up with a different first cause for that object. So the argument does not entail the existence of a unique first cause for every event. This question can be used to get students to spot this gap in the argument. If there are a fair number of students answering C, ask someone to explain why and see if they give the right reason (or something close). If they have the wrong reason, or if most students think the argument is valid, you can give them a clue, perhaps by asking about an analogous argument, such as 1. Every book was written by someone, therefore: There is one person who wrote every book.
1. Some things exist and their existence is caused (Premise)
2. Nothing causes itself. (Premise)
3. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes. (Premise)
4. There can’t be a circle of causes. (Unstated Premise)
5. If there is a first cause, it is unique. (Unstated Premise)
Therefore:
6. There is a first cause of existence – something that causes other things, but is not itself caused.
Therefore:
C. God exists.
Is this argument valid?
A. Yes.
B. No.
Answer: A
Topic:
Aquinas, second way, cosmological argument
Course Level:
First year, intro. to philosophy
Notes:
Consider the following claim about free-will:
Every person can make free choices which cause changes in the world, but what makes those choices free is that they are not caused by anything or anyone else.
If this claim was true, which of the premises in the argument would it cast doubt on?
A. Premise 2.
B. Premise 3.
C. Premise 5.
D. None of the premises.
Answer: C
Topic:
Aquinas, second way, cosmological argument
Course Level:
First year, intro. to philosophy
Notes:
Consider the following claim about quantum mechanics:
According to Quantum Mechanics, some pairs of sub-atomic particles can come into existence without there being any cause for this.
If this is true, which premise of the argument would it cast most doubt on?
A. Premise 2
B. Premise 4
C. Premise 5
D. None of the premises.
Answer: C
Topic:
Aquinas, second way, cosmological argument
Course Level:
First year, intro. to philosophy