1. Nothing takes place without their being sufficient reason for it. 2. As everything in the world is contingent, to have sufficient reason, we must get back to something that it not contingent. 3. This non contingent sufficient reason must exist outside of the world and the best explanation for it is god.

1. Nothing takes place without their being sufficient reason for it. 2. As everything in the world is necessary, to have sufficient reason, we must get back to something that it not contingent. 3. This non contingent sufficient reason must exist outside of the world and the best explanation for it is god.

1. Nothing takes place without their being sufficient reason for it. 2. As everything in the world is contingent, to have sufficient reason, we must get back to something that it contingent. 3. This contingent sufficient reason must exist outside of the world and the best explanation for it is god.

1. Nothing takes place without their being sufficient reason for it. 2. As everything in the world is contingent, to have sufficient reason, we must get back to something that it not contingent. 3. This non contingent sufficient reason must exist outside of the world and the best explanation for it is chance.

Developed by 10th century Islamic scholastic al ghazali, reimagined and updated by 21st century Christian philosopher William lane Craig.

Devoloped by 11th century Islamic scholastic al ghazali, reimagined and updated by 21st century Christian philosopher William lane Craig.

Developed by 10th century Islamic scholastic al ghazali, reimagined and updated by 20th century Christian philosopher William lane Craig.

Developed by 11th century Islamic scholastic al ghazali, reimagined and updated by 20th century Christian philosopher William lane Craig.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Ergo, the universe must have a cause. 4. The cause must be god, this is a deductive argument that reasons from the general to the specific.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe did not begin to exist. 3. Ergo, the universe must have a cause. 4. The cause must be god, this is a deductive argument that reasons from the general to the specific.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Ergo, the universe must have a cause. 4. The cause must be not god, this is a deductive argument that reasons from the general to the specific.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Ergo, the universe must have a cause. 4. The cause must be god, this is an inductive argument that reasons from the general to the specific.

1. In an isolated system the state of entropy (the amount of unusable energy) increases with time and never decreases. 2. The universe of the past had much less entropy then it has now. 3. A universe which existed forever could not be now in the present state of disequilibrium. 4. Ergo, the universe began to exist.

1. In an isolated system the state of entropy (the amount of unusable energy) decreases with time and never increases. 2. The universe of the past had much less entropy then it has now. 3. A universe which existed forever could not be now in the present state of disequilibrium. 4. Ergo, the universe began to exist.

1. In an isolated system the state of entropy (the amount of unusable energy) increases with time and never decreases. 2. The universe of the past had much less entropy then it has now. 3. A universe which existed forever could be now in the present state of disequilibrium. 4. Ergo, the universe did not begin to exist.

1. In an isolated system the state of entropy (the amount of usable energy) increases with time and never decreases. 2. The universe of the past had much less entropy then it has now. 3. A universe which existed forever could not be now in the present state of disequilibrium. 4. Ergo, the universe began to exist.

1. Either the universe had an ultimate cause, or no ultimate cause. 2. If the universe had no ultimate cause, then the chain of cause and effect had a beginning. 3. This is impossible, if the chain of cause and effect had no beginning, there would be no chain! 4. Ergo, the universe must have an ultimate cause. This uses reductio ad absurdum.

1. Either the universe had an ultimate cause, or no ultimate cause. 2. If the universe had no ultimate cause, then the chain of cause and effect had no beginning. 3. This is impossible, if the chain of cause and effect had no beginning, there would be no chain! 4. Ergo, the universe must have an ultimate cause. This uses reductio ad absurdum.

1. Either the universe had an ultimate cause, or no ultimate cause. 2. If the universe had no ultimate cause, then the chain of cause and effect had no beginning. 3. This is impossible, if the chain of cause and effect had no beginning, there would be no chain! 4. Ergo, the universe must have no ultimate cause. This uses reductio ad absurdum.

1. Either the universe had an ultimate cause, or no ultimate cause. 2. If the universe had no ultimate cause, then the chain of cause and effect had no beginning. 3. This is possible, if the chain of cause and effect had no beginning, there would be no chain! 4. Ergo, the universe must have an ultimate cause. This uses reductio ad absurdum.

Motion, cause, contingency, inductive arguments which use reductio ad absurdum to show the fallacy of infinite regress.

Motion, cause, contingency, inductive arguments which use abductive arguments to show the fallacy of infinite regress.

Motion, cause, continuity, inductive arguments which use reductio ad absurdum to show the fallacy of infinite regress.

Median, cause, contingency, inductive arguments which use reductio ad absurdum to show the fallacy of infinite regress.

1. There are things in the universe in a state of motion. 2. Something can change by itself, they are all secondary movers. 3. If all things were secondary movers there would be an infinite regress of movers. 4. If this is true, there would be no prime mover, so no secondary movers. C. There are secondary movers, so there must be an unmoved prime mover.

1. There are things in the universe in a state of motion. 2. Nothing can change by itself, they are all secondary movers. 3. If all things were secondary movers there would be an infinite regress of movers. 4. If this is true, there would be no prime mover, so no secondary movers. C. There are secondary movers, so there must be no unmoved prime mover.

1. There are things in the universe in a state of motion. 2. Nothing can change by itself, they are all secondary movers. 3. If all things were secondary movers there would be an infinite regress of movers. 4. If this is true, there would be a prime mover, so some secondary movers. C. There are secondary movers, so there must be an unmoved prime mover.

1. There are things in the universe in a state of motion. 2. Nothing can change by itself, they are all secondary movers. 3. If all things were secondary movers there would be an infinite regress of movers. 4. If this is true, there would be no prime mover, so no secondary movers. C. There are secondary movers, so there must be an unmoved prime mover.

1. Every event has a cause. 2. Nothing can be its own cause. 3. If the order of causes goes back to infinity, there would be no first cause. 4. If there was no first cause, there would be no causes at all, this is false. C. There must not be a first cause- god.

1. Every event has a cause. 2. Nothing can be its own cause. 3. If the order of causes goes back to infinity, there would be no first cause. 4. If there was no first cause, there would be no causes at all, this is false. C. There must be a first cause- god.

1. Every event has a cause. 2. Nothing can be its own cause. 3. If the order of causes goes back to infinity, there would be no first cause. 4. If there was no first cause, there would be no causes at all, this is false. C. There must be a first cause- this is not god.

1. Every event has a cause. 2. Nothing can be its own cause. 3. If the order of causes goes back to infinity, there would be no first cause. 4. If there was a first cause, there would be loads of causes. C. There must be a first cause- god.

1. In nature, everything can exist. 2. Given infinite time, everything will eventually not exist. 3. If there was once nothing, nothing could come from it.

1. In nature, everything can exist or not exist. 2. Given infinite time, everything will eventually exist. 3. If there was once nothing, nothing could come from it.

1. In nature, everything can exist or not exist. 2. Given infinite time, everything will eventually not exist. 3. If there was once nothing, something could come from it.

1. In nature, everything can exist or not exist. 2. Given infinite time, everything will eventually not exist. 3. If there was once nothing, nothing could come from it.

4. As something could not come from nothing, there must be something which does not exist necessarily. 5. Everything necessary must be caused or uncaused. 6. You can’t have an infinite series of necessary things causing each other as there’d be no explanation for the series itself. C. There must be a being that has its own necessity- god.

4. As something could not come from nothing, there must be something which exists necessarily. 5. Everything necessary must be caused or uncaused. 6. You can’t have an infinite series of necessary things causing each other as there’d be no explanation for the series itself. C. There must be a being that has its own necessity- god.

4. As something could not come from nothing, there must be something which exists necessarily. 5. Everything necessary must be caused or uncaused. 6. You can have an infinite series of necessary things causing each other as there’d be no explanation for the series itself. C. There must be no being that has its own necessity- god.

4. As something could not come from nothing, there must be something which exists necessarily. 5. Everything necessary must be caused or uncaused. 6. You can’t have an infinite series of necessary things causing each other as there’d be no explanation for the series itself. C. There must be a being that has its own necessity- this is not god.

Does not seek to prove a uniquely Christian god, just an uncaused necessary being, making it simpler and easier to prove

Even if infinite regress was possible, we would still suppose it had an explanation outside of itself.

Cosmological arguments are supported by scientific arguments like the Big Bang which argue that the universe had a beginning

Deductive arguments are based on probability and our experiences of the world seem to support the argument, raising it probability.

Inductive arguments are only probable.

If we think of what god was doing before creating the universe, we are drawn into an infinite regress where god actively chose not to create the universe.

Why does infinite regress have to be impossible?

Is not backed up by empirical evidence.

Russell argues that the universe requires no cause/explanation, it just is and is a brute fact.

Could it not be that the universe is the unmoved, uncaused causer- why does this have to be god?

We cannot prove god through reason alone.

1st and 2nd ways are contradictions, they say everything has a cause, then argue that god was uncaused

Sufficient reason is flawed, those who look for it for the universe are looking for something which doesn’t exist.

Even if the universe did begin, there’s nothing to prove it was god who caused it

Existence is not a predicate as it adds nothing to our understanding of a thing.

We have no experience of the creation of the universe, so can’t speak meaningfully of it.

We think of it as a first cause which sets off a chain of events and if we go back far enough, we will encounter it. This suggests that the cause no longer exists, something no theist would accept. It could be argued, however, that causation sustains an event, not just causes it.

Causation might just be a psychological effect we create in our minds.

and if we go back far enough, we will encounter it. This suggests that the cause still exists, something many theists would accept. It could be argued, however, that causation sustains an event, not just causes it

Causation is a concept we create a priori and does not actually exist.

It is not formal, if we take square tiles on a floor, it would be a fallacy to assume that just because the tiles are square, the whole floor is. Yet if we replace shape with color, the fallacy stands.

It is formal, if we take square tiles on a floor, it would be a fallacy to assume that just because the tiles are square, the whole floor is. Yet if we replace shape with color, the fallacy stands.

It is too formal, if we take square tiles on a floor, it would be a fallacy to assume that just because the tiles are square, the whole floor is. Yet if we replace shape with color, the fallacy stands.

It is not formal, if we take square tiles on a floor, it would be a fallacy to assume that just because the tiles are square, the whole floor is. Yet if we replace shape with dimensions, the fallacy stands.

1. Our knowledge of the world is limited to the world of space and time and we can speculate on what may exist outside of it. 2. The idea of a necessary being is a fallacy as the premise ‘god exists’ is a self evident proposition, so it is contradictory to deny it.

1. Our knowledge of the world is limited to the world of space and time and we can speculate on what may exist outside of it. 2. The idea of a necessary being is a fallacy as the premise ‘god exists’ is not a self evident proposition, so it is not contradictory to deny it.

1. Our knowledge of the world is limited to the world of space and time and we can’t speculate on what may exist outside of it. 2. The idea of a necessary being is a fallacy as the premise ‘god exists’ is a self evident proposition, so it is contradictory to deny it.

1. Our knowledge of the world is limited to the world of space and time and we can’t speculate on what may exist outside of it. 2. The idea of a necessary being is a fallacy as the premise ‘god exists’ is not a self evident proposition, so it is not contradictory to deny it.