Fallacy of Composition relating to First Cause

  • Thread starter Thread starter aball1035
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The cosmological argument doesn’t state that everything has a cause. Some of them (per Kreeft and Tacelli) can be formalized like this:
  1. Everything in motion is moved by another.
  2. The universe is in motion.
  3. Therefore, the universe is moved by another.
The second premise does indeed make use of composition, but like cpayne pointed out, this isn’t always fallacious. Another example would be like this: every part of the floor is made of wood, so the entire floor must be made of wood. This is known as an essential composition. An incidental composition, on the other hand, is fallacious. An example of that would be: every part of the floor is small, so the entire floor must be small.

Notice that essential compositions are related to a thing’s quality, whereas incidental compositions are related to its quantity. The continuity of the universe’s motion is qualitative in nature, so I don’t believe the argument commits any fallacy.
 
punkforchrist said:
Notice that essential compositions are related to a thing’s quality, whereas incidental compositions are related to its quantity. The continuity of the universe’s motion is qualitative in nature, so I don’t believe the argument commits any fallacy.
Click to expand...
The “all swans are white” argument uses the qualitative composition fallacy.
 
wasmit said:
The “all swans are white” argument uses the qualitative composition fallacy.
Click to expand...
:ehh:

punkforchrist said:
  1. *]
    Everything in motion is moved by another.
    *]The universe is in motion.
    *]Therefore, the universe is moved by another.
Click to expand...


  1. That’s not an “all swans are white” argument, more of an “all white swans are white” argument.
 
wasmit said:
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
Click to expand...
Wasmit:

You are so busy trying to find fallacy within Aquinas’ argument that you completely mis-read it. Neither of your attributed fallacies are extant in his logic.

His argument defines “efficient causality,” in its commonest form, as having an order, which, in fact, it does - without fail. That order is simple: in all cause-effect cycles cause is prior to effect. Cause is a priori to effect not only from the perspective of logic, but also, from the perspective of time. Furthermore, an effect cannot cause itself. Thus, there can be no composition error, as composition is not germane to the logic, nor, is there any special pleading error, as there is nothing in it that requires special pleading. Period.

jd
 
Hi wasmit,
40.png
wasmit:
The “all swans are white” argument uses the qualitative composition fallacy.
Click to expand...
If you take the class of all white swans, then it is not fallacious to say that the set as a whole is white. 1holycatholic made this point, as well.
 
1holycatholic said:
Everything in motion is moved by another.
The universe is in motion.
Therefore, the universe is moved by another.
Click to expand...
The way I see it is that the swans fallacy said: “Every swan ever recorded has been white. Thefore all swans are white”. This argument says, paraphrased “Every moving thing ever recorded was moved by another thing. Thefore all moving things are moved by another thing”. So, it is similarly fallacious.
Click to expand...
 
punkforchrist said:
Hi wasmit,

If you take the class of all white swans, then it is not fallacious to say that the set as a whole is white. 1holycatholic made this point, as well.
Click to expand...
I agree. The composition fallacy in the argument comes from extrapolating human experience within the universe to the universe itself.
 
wasmit said:
The way I see it is that the swans fallacy said: “Every swan ever recorded has been white. Thefore all swans are white”. This argument says, paraphrased “Every moving thing ever recorded was moved by another thing. Thefore all moving things are moved by another thing”. So, it is similarly fallacious.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t this just be a strong inductive argument though?
 
aball1035 said:
.

Premise: Everything had to have been caused
Therefore: The Universe too, had to have a cause
Conclusion: God, the cause of all things, exists
Click to expand...
The only fallacy i can see here is the way the arguement is represented. In that respect, the arguement is certainly flawed.

In any case, if it is in fact true that the universe (all of physical reality) had to have a cause, then it would mean that there was in fact a first cause, at least in terms of a cause and effect relationship and the inert natures of that which is involved. Its as basic as 2 + 2.

I don’t see how the fallacy of composition enters. Can you explain why you think that the book might be right?
 
wasmit said:
I agree. The composition fallacy in the argument comes from extrapolating human experience within the universe to the universe itself.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that induction is fallacious?
 
wasmit said:
The way I see it is that the swans fallacy said: “Every swan ever recorded has been white. Therefore all swans are white”. This argument says, paraphrased “Every moving thing ever recorded was moved by another thing. Therefore all moving things are moved by another thing”. So, it is similarly fallacious.
Click to expand...
No. We have no a-prior basis for believing that all swans are white. Neither do we any a-prior reason for believing that God exists.

But causality is different, since a cause is posited to sufficiently explain the effect.

One does not have to know that all things are moved by another in order to hold to the logical principle that anything which begins to move needs a cause. If a thing cannot be moved by itself, then it requires a cause in order to be moved; otherwise one has to suggest that a thing can move without a cause. But this does not explain the motion of the effect, and insofar as we are trying to explain the motion of the effect, one needs to posit a cause. Based upon that principle, it follows logically and necessarily that therefore anything that is in motion has been moved by another, since it cannot of been moved by itself for absolutely no reason. Neither is it reasonable to believe that a thing could be in effect for no reason. Therefore, in order to explain the existence of effects, there must be a first cause of all effects. The idea that things happen for no reason, is not a reasonable thing to believe in. Its induction, and induction is valid.

Otherwise we would have no basis for conjuring up scientific theories about causes; science makes use of inductive arguments just as much as metaphysics.
 
wasmit said:
I agree. The composition fallacy in the argument comes from extrapolating human experience within the universe to the universe itself.
Click to expand...
I originally anticipated this objection, which is why I made the distinction between an incidental composition and an essential composition. If every part of the universe is in motion, then the universe as a whole is in motion. In order to make an exception for the universe, we need a really good reason for it to be an exception; otherwise, one is engaging in special pleading.
 
punkforchrist said:
I originally anticipated this objection, which is why I made the distinction between an incidental composition and an essential composition. If every part of the universe is in motion, then the universe as a whole is in motion. In order to make an exception for the universe, we need a really good reason for it to be an exception; otherwise, one is engaging in special pleading.
Click to expand...
Quite simply beautiful.👍
 
I agree with what you said regarding the cosmological argument. It seems to me that your intuition is leading you in the direction of the PSR: “everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.” I believe this principle is much more probable than its negation. In fact, its negation would undermine all of science and rational inquiry.

The PSR can, of course, be supported by way of induction.

The only disagreement I have is that I believe we can demonstrate God’s existence by a priori arguments. But, that’s a matter for another thread. 🙂
 
punkforchrist said:
I agree with what you said regarding the cosmological argument. It seems to me that your intuition is leading you in the direction of the PSR: “everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.” I believe this principle is much more probable than its negation. In fact, its negation would undermine all of science and rational inquiry.

The PSR can, of course, be supported by way of induction.

The only disagreement I have is that I believe we can demonstrate God’s existence by a priori arguments. But, that’s a matter for another thread. 🙂
Click to expand...
I’ve noticed that atheists want to have it both ways. Atheists who actually understand the argument from causality have to attack the PSR. What is problematic is that the PSR is a linchpin of the scientific method. The two go together: you can’t accept the scientific method without also accepting the PSR, and in doing so you *de facto *accept the argument from causality and the existence of God.
 
1holycatholic said:
I’ve noticed that atheists want to have it both ways. Atheists who actually understand the argument from causality have to attack the PSR. What is problematic is that the PSR is a linchpin of the scientific method. The two go together: you can’t accept the scientific method without also accepting the PSR, and in doing so you *de facto *accept the argument from causality and the existence of God.
Click to expand...
Sometimes the truth is sour my freind. And sometimes denial appears like genuine scepticism.
 
40.png
1holycatholic:
I’ve noticed that atheists want to have it both ways. Atheists who actually understand the argument from causality have to attack the PSR. What is problematic is that the PSR is a linchpin of the scientific method. The two go together: you can’t accept the scientific method without also accepting the PSR, and in doing so you de facto accept the argument from causality and the existence of God.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree. There are many bright atheists in the scientific community, but they don’t always take their presuppositions to their logical conclusions. The very fact that anyone looks for a reason why gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak atomic forces work as they do (i.e. Hawking’s “theory of everything”) strongly suggests the application of the PSR.

With that said, one can still accept the notion of brute facts or states of affairs. The PSR, in its standard formulation, merely states that “everything has an explanation of its existence . . .” And, unless one wishes to reject standard modal logic, it is apparent that the universe is radically contingent. This leaves only a necessary transcendent cause (God) to be the sufficient reason for why anything, rather than nothing, exists.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top