An objection to the contingency argument

  • Thread starter Thread starter CatholicSoxFan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CatholicSoxFan

Guest
I made a thread on the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument a while back, and somebody brought up an interesting objection which puzzled me, and I’ve encountered numerous arguments which have the same general point while discussing things related to free will and contingency arguments for the existence of God. Now, I encountered a version of the objection which I think gets to the heart of what the argunents are trying to say.

Basically, there are three options of what the status of the fact “God is the explanation of the universe’s existence”:
1) It is a contingent fact with no explanation.
2) It is a contingent fact with an explanation.
3) It is a necessary fact.


All three of these options are problematic:
  1. violates the principle of sufficient reason, henceforth referred to as the PSR, which does the job of the non-theist who is trying to object to contingency arguments, since they all rely on the PSR or some version of it.
  2. just pushes the question one step back. Say the fact “God is the explanation of the universe’s existence” is explained by fact X. Well, then the same three options apply to the fact “X explains the fact “God is the explanation of the universe’s existence””, and the three options have the exact same problems with them.
If 3) is true, then that makes the universe necessary, which 1) contradicts Catholic doctrine that God freely created the universe, and 2) does the job of the non-theist objecting to contingency arguments, because most of them have a premise sayng that the universe is contingent.

What is your response to this?
 
I made a thread on the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument a while back, and somebody brought up an interesting objection which puzzled me, and I’ve encountered numerous arguments which have the same general point while discussing things related to free will and contingency arguments for the existence of God. Now, I encountered a version of the objection which I think gets to the heart of what the argunents are trying to say.

Basically, there are three options of what the status of the fact “God is the explanation of the universe’s existence”:
1) It is a contingent fact with no explanation.
2) It is a contingent fact with an explanation.
3) It is a necessary fact.


All three of these options are problematic:
  1. violates the principle of sufficient reason, henceforth referred to as the PSR, which does the job of the non-theist who is trying to object to contingency arguments, since they all rely on the PSR or some version of it.
  2. just pushes the question one step back. Say the fact “God is the explanation of the universe’s existence” is explained by fact X. Well, then the same three options apply to the fact “X explains the fact “God is the explanation of the universe’s existence””, and the three options have the exact same problems with them.
If 3) is true, then that makes the universe necessary, which 1) contradicts Catholic doctrine that God freely created the universe, and 2) does the job of the non-theist objecting to contingency arguments, because most of them have a premise sayng that the universe is contingent.

What is your response to this?
It certainly has to be number 3. Your objections to number 1 and 2 are pretty much on track.

Your objection to number 3 however is problematic. Things are necessary in different senses. One sense that something is necessary is that is necessary absolutely speaking. Another is necessary by supposition. Something is necessary by supposition if it is necessary given some condition. So, an example of something that is absolutely necessary is 2+2=4. It however is necessary by supposition that I am made of matter GIVEN that I am a human.

Now, the universe does not exist by necessity absolutely speaking because it is not within the nature of the universe itself to exist. What the physical universe IS does not entail that it EXISTS. Hence, it is not necessary absolutely.

Yet, GIVEN the supposition THAT God has willed the universe to exist, then it does exist by necessity because God’s will always obtains. Hence “God is the explanation of the universe” is a necessary fact given that there is a universe. It more accurately can be stated as: “If anything besides God exists (i.e. the universe), then God is the explanation of that thing (i.e. the universe.”
 
I made a thread on the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument a while back…
  1. All things composed of matter and form have an explanation for their existence, ultimately God.
  2. But that explanation cannot be carried to infinity or there would be no first explanation, therefore there would be no " contingent fact. " But this is impossible because the world actually exists.
  3. Nothing is a necessary fact unless it gets its necessity from some other. But again, this cannot go on infinitely, there must be a first which has its necessity in itself and which causes necessity in all other things.
Also, # 3 would have to be proven. And that is impossible…

You need to read Thomas Aquinas’ Five Ways, they are better.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

Omitted the Fifth Way for length.

Linus2nd
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top