Fallacy of Composition relating to First Cause

  • Thread starter Thread starter aball1035
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

aball1035

Guest
I’m taking a logic class and we recently studied the Fallacy of Composition (the thought that a property of individual parts will have the same property when combined). The book we’re reading stated that the First Cause for God argument had this fallacy.

They wrote it this way…

Premise: Everything had to have been caused
Therefore: The Universe too, had to have a cause
Conclusion: God, the cause of all things, exists

The book labeled this as a fallacy of composition. I don’t know what to think of it. Anyone have a response?
 
aball1035 said:
I’m taking a logic class and we recently studied the Fallacy of Composition (the thought that a property of individual parts will have the same property when combined). The book we’re reading stated that the First Cause for God argument had this fallacy.

They wrote it this way…

Premise: Everything had to have been caused
Therefore: The Universe too, had to have a cause
Conclusion: God, the cause of all things, exists

The book labeled this as a fallacy of composition. I don’t know what to think of it. Anyone have a response?
Click to expand...
Hmmm, almost seems like a “hasty generalization” logical fallacy which is often confused with a fallacy of composition.

Either way, it is a logical fallacy.
 
aball1035 said:
I’m taking a logic class and we recently studied the Fallacy of Composition (the thought that a property of individual parts will have the same property when combined). The book we’re reading stated that the First Cause for God argument had this fallacy.

They wrote it this way…

Premise: Everything had to have been caused
Therefore: The Universe too, had to have a cause
Conclusion: God, the cause of all things, exists

The book labeled this as a fallacy of composition. I don’t know what to think of it. Anyone have a response?
Click to expand...
That’s not the argument from causality. You’ve been duped.

This is the genuine article: newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article3
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.
It’s not the same argument as the simple minded straw-man that was presented to you.
 
What about the watch and the watchmaker analogy? Like it’s obvious that a watch has to have a maker-same with the complex universe. Random chance wouldn’t make sense, but a creater would. Or would this be a fallacy too?
 
aball1035 said:
What about the watch and the watchmaker analogy? Like it’s obvious that a watch has to have a maker-same with the complex universe. Random chance wouldn’t make sense, but a creater would. Or would this be a fallacy too?
Click to expand...
A creator doesn’t make sense. The creator is the ultimate watch. What created that watch?
 
aball1035 said:
What about the watch and the watchmaker analogy? Like it’s obvious that a watch has to have a maker-same with the complex universe. Random chance wouldn’t make sense, but a creater would. Or would this be a fallacy too?
Click to expand...
That’s an entirely different argument.
 
1holycatholic said:
See post #3.
Click to expand...
Not everyone names the first cause, “god.” and those who do don’t all define it the same way. For example, when pantheist speak of god they are referring to nature. No argument for the first cause logically leads to a personal god.
 
morgantj said:
Not everyone names the first cause, “god.” and those who do don’t all define it the same way. For example, when pantheist speak of god they are referring to nature. No argument for the first cause logically leads to a personal god.
Click to expand...
:hmmm:
peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm
How can anyone squirm out of this tight logic? Here are four ways in which different philosophers try.
  • First, many say the proofs don’t prove God but only some vague first cause or other. “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not the God of philosophers and scholars”, cries Pascal, who was a passionate Christian but did not believe you could logically prove God’s existence. It is true that the proofs do not prove everything the Christian means by God, but they do prove a transcendent, eternal, uncaused, immortal, self-existing, independent, all-perfect being. That certainly sounds more like God than like Superman! It’s a pretty thick slice of God, at any rate—much too much for any atheist to digest.
 
morgantj said:
Not everyone names the first cause, “god.” and those who do don’t all define it the same way. For example, when pantheist speak of god they are referring to nature. No argument for the first cause logically leads to a personal god.
Click to expand...
It is immaterial whether the first cause is termed god. What matters is it exists.
 
aball1035 said:
I’m taking a logic class and we recently studied the Fallacy of Composition (the thought that a property of individual parts will have the same property when combined). The book we’re reading stated that the First Cause for God argument had this fallacy.

They wrote it this way…

Premise: Everything had to have been caused
Therefore: The Universe too, had to have a cause
Conclusion: God, the cause of all things, exists

The book labeled this as a fallacy of composition. I don’t know what to think of it. Anyone have a response?
Click to expand...
The composition fallacy is implicitly behind this argument, i.e.: Everything in the universe is contingent and requires a cause; the universe itself is contingent and requires a cause.

However, one response is this: The composition fallacy is not strictly speaking a logical fallacy (fallacious because of structure), but rather a material fallacy. As a material fallacy it can actually be correct and logical. For example: Every part of this machine is made of steel; therefore, the entire machine is made of steel. That’s correct, even though it’s still composition.

A mistaken example would be: Every part of this machine is a foot long; therefore, the machine is a foot long.

I’d say the first cause argument is closer to the first (correct) example. The universe as we observe it does appear to be changeable, moving, not necessarily existing in the fashion it stands. In other words, it also appears to be contingent and requiring a cause, just as its constituent elements are and do. In this way we might get around the composition objection.
 
aball1035 said:
I’m taking a logic class and we recently studied the Fallacy of Composition (the thought that a property of individual parts will have the same property when combined). The book we’re reading stated that the First Cause for God argument had this fallacy.

They wrote it this way…

Premise: Everything had to have been caused
Therefore: The Universe too, had to have a cause
Conclusion: God, the cause of all things, exists

The book labeled this as a fallacy of composition. I don’t know what to think of it. Anyone have a response?
Click to expand...
The “Everything has a cause” argument stated here is indeed a strawman. The real First Cause argument (as stated by Aquinas) does not treat the Universe as a composite entity (every *part *combined into a whole), but as a causal chain (every part as it relates to every other part). So this fallacy simply doesn’t apply to the proper argument. It’s a counterfeit argument constructed precisely with the fallacy in mind in order to tear it down.

Notice how the argument itself doesn’t make sense from a naturalist/materialist point of view: what is “the Universe” but another word for “Everything”? The first premise simply repeats the second and the fallacy of composition wouldn’t apply anyway.

One thing I learned in University: don’t believe everything you read in textbooks! 🙂
 
aball1035 said:
I’m taking a logic class and we recently studied the Fallacy of Composition (the thought that a property of individual parts will have the same property when combined). The book we’re reading stated that the First Cause for God argument had this fallacy.

They wrote it this way…

Premise: Everything had to have been caused
Therefore: The Universe too, had to have a cause
Conclusion: God, the cause of all things, exists

The book labeled this as a fallacy of composition. I don’t know what to think of it. Anyone have a response?
Click to expand...
other than that being an innacurate portrayal of first cause, there is another problem
  1. do we have a reason to believe that the universe needs no cause? no we dont, in fact that idea invalidates everything we know about physical determinism. in other words there is no reason to believe that the fallacy of composition has occured in causality arguments.
 
That really is quite a misrepresentation of the argument.

Perhaps a better way of giving the first premise is to say:

“Everything that has a* beginning* must have a cause.” (Nothing can create itself, because if it doesn’t exist then it cannot act to bring itself into existence.)

Because, if the universe has always existed (steady state theory?) then why does it have to be caused? It’s only if we subscribe to the a model like the “Big Bang” does the causal argument apply.

JD
 
Johndigger said:
That really is quite a misrepresentation of the argument.

Perhaps a better way of giving the first premise is to say:

“Everything that has a* beginning* must have a cause.” (Nothing can create itself, because if it doesn’t exist then it cannot act to bring itself into existence.)

Because, if the universe has always existed (steady state theory?) then why does it have to be caused? It’s only if we subscribe to the a model like the “Big Bang” does the causal argument apply.

JD
Click to expand...
What would be the correct first cause arguement?
 
Johndigger said:
Because, if the universe has always existed (steady state theory?) then why does it have to be caused? It’s only if we subscribe to the a model like the “Big Bang” does the causal argument apply.JD
Click to expand...
But hasn’t the big bang been proven (somewhat)? I read a while back that astronomers found the “edge” of the Universe, a milky wall or somesuch. I’m no scientist so I could be mistaken.

From wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory

*Stephen Hawking said that the fact that microwave radiation had been found, and that it was thought to be left over from the Big Bang, was “the final nail in the coffin of the steady-state theory.” *

Sorry for resorting to wikipedia, but I’ve been out of college for a while and don’t have many of my books anymore.

Steady State theory ignores the principle that every effect has a cause. Irrefutable. Microwave radiation is a bit over my head, but there is Stephen Hawking so I’ll leave that to him.

As for the fallacy of composition, I don’t think that the OP’s syllogism *disproves *the First Cause, but rather *demostrates *the fallacy of composition.

Premise: Everything had to have been caused
Therefore: The Universe too, had to have a cause
Conclusion: God, the cause of all things, exists

I mean, that’s just sloppy as hell. 😃 The logical argument for God requires far more than a mere three line deductive syllogism.
 
aball1035 said:
I’m taking a logic class and we recently studied the Fallacy of Composition (the thought that a property of individual parts will have the same property when combined). The book we’re reading stated that the First Cause for God argument had this fallacy.

They wrote it this way…

Premise: Everything had to have been caused
Therefore: The Universe too, had to have a cause
Conclusion: God, the cause of all things, exists

The book labeled this as a fallacy of composition. I don’t know what to think of it. Anyone have a response?
Click to expand...
Regarding the references to “First Cause” – The term for God is Uncaused Cause.
The real word “uncaused” makes a very big difference.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.
 
1holycatholic said:
That’s not the argument from causality. You’ve been duped.

This is the genuine article: newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article3
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.
It’s not the same argument as the simple minded straw-man that was presented to you.
Click to expand...
This argument, and the argument in the OP, uses the fallacy of composition, because it says, paraphrased “everything that we see within the universe has a cause which is not itself, therefore, the universe has a cause which is not itself”. This is the same as the fallacious example at this link:

nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html
  1. The parts of the whole X have characteristics A, B, C, etc.
  2. Therefore the whole X must have characteristics A, B, C.
This is the same as the famous “All swans are white” fallacy.

–

This argument also uses the fallacy of special pleading.

nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top