It is a form of argument from universal causation. But if there is question of causes on which the work is not essentially dependent, we cannot draw the same conclusion.
Y represents the cause or part of the cause of Z, say Harry Truman. However, if you use a priori knowledge, you could easily reason that, not everything which exists has a cause. One strength which the argument holds is that, as with the first two ways, this argument appeals strongly to human reason and logic, leading it to be widely accepted by empiricists.
The illustrations given by Joyce and Phillips are hardly to the point. Therefore, to base an argument on causation would be foolish, as we could never be sure that causation is anything other than a psychological effect.
Iron, in virtue of its natural rigidity, retains in being the shape which it has once received; and, similarly, the materials employed in building retain in being the order and arrangement which constitute them into a house.
However, Aquinas does not mean to argue that God is merely the being that started off the chain of events which lead to cause the universe and everything in it. There are three main categories of criticism that Hume makes of the argument.
This hugely takes away from the strength of the argument as it is upon this assumption which Aquinas bases his entire premise.
It is impossible to claim that this is analytically true. No staunch defender of the cosmological argument would give up at this stage. Supplementary arguments are required to show that the first cause must have the attributes assigned to the deity. Again, this is a clearly thought out criticism of the Cosmological Argument which takes away from its strength.
As a general trend, the modern slants on the cosmological argument, including the Kalam argumenttend to lean very strongly towards an in fieri argument. He gives the example of a billiard ball hitting another — all we can observe is that the motion of one ball follows the motion of the other ball — we link the two in our minds and say that one causes the other to move, but there is no evidence of a link.
A believer in the infinite series would insist that his position was just as much misrepresented now as before. Hume challenges these assumptions in his Dialogues.
It is true that a carpenter would not, in a finite time-span, succeed in driving in a nail if he had to carry out an infinite number of movements.A Critique of the Cosmological Argument.
Paul Edwards. I. The so-called “cosmological proof” is one of the oldest and most popular arguments for the existence of God.
Open Document. Below is an essay on "Key Criticisms to the Cosmological Argument" from Anti Essays, your source for research papers, essays, and term paper examples. a) Explain Hume’s criticisms of the cosmological argument.
 Hume’s criticisms of the cosmological argument are found in his book Dialogues on Natural Religion. In them Philo, Demea and Cleanthes discuss arguments for the existence of God.
Hume was a sceptic and therefore doubtful about the claims of religion. The sceptic in the Dialogues. Transcript of Criticisms of the Cosmological Argument Weakness 1 Perhaps the most severe and damaging criticism of this argument is the idea that an infinite chain of regression is in fact possible.
The five ways are: argument for an unmoved mover, argument for an uncaused causer, argument from contingency, argument from gradation and argument from teleology. It is the first three that support the cosmological argument to explain the existence of God.
Explain Hume's Criticisms of the cosmological argument - Download as Word Doc .doc /.docx), PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read online.
An A type OCR essay explaining Hume's criticisms of the cosmological argument.Download