AS Level Cosmological Argument 2009 question

2009 PART (I)

ARGUMENT FROM CAUSE – PREMISES AND CONCLUSION

REJECTS THE NOTION OF INFINITE REGRESS – EXPLAIN

PAD WITH FIRST 3 OF AQUINAS’ WAYS:

                MOTION / CAUSE / POSSIBILITY AND NECESSITY

                EXPLAIN WHY GOD IS A NECESSARY BEING

GIVE EXAMPLES OFWHY STRONG: LOGIC (INDUCTIVE) AND EVIDENCE (A POSTERIORI):

                CONTINGENCY VERSUS NECESSITY

LIEBNITZ’ SUFFICIENT REASON – WHEN THERE ARE TWO STATES EQUALLY POSSIBLE THERE HAS TO BE A GOOD REASON WHY ONE STATE EXISTS RATHER THAN ANOTHER.

ARISTOTLE ‘NOTHING CAN COME FROM NOTHING’

PART (II)

HUME WHY NO INFINITE REGRESS

LEAP TOO FAR

‘CAN NEVER ASCRIBE TO THE CAUSE ANY QUALITIES  BUT WHAT ARE  SUFFICIENT TO PRODUCE IT...’

KANT – CAN’T GET OUTSIDE TO SEE – ANALOGY TOO STRETCHED FROM THE FINITE TO THE INFINITE.

HUME AND KANT – MINDS TOO LIMITED; CAUSE AND EFFECT MAY NOT BE INHERENTLY LINKED...

WILL NOT CONVINCE AN ATHEIST BUT...

SWINBURNE – EXTRAORDINARY THERE IS ANYTHING AT ALL...

                HOWEVER UNLESS THE CHANCE IS ZERO THEN IT DOESNT HAVE TO BE SUPERNATURAL IN ORIGIN...