The necessary being

[coolduude]

Here is a proof I stumbled upon a while back when I was trying to determine if God existed or not. Maybe some of you guys here know where this is from (the quote, not the argument itself) Anyway, here it is:

Does a necessary being exist? Here is the proof that it does. Dependent beings cannot cause themselves. They are dependent on their causes. If there is no independent being, then the whole chain of dependent beings is dependent on nothing and could not exist. But they do exist. Therefore there is an independent being.

But does the conclusion- that a necessary being exists- follow from the premise? It doesn’t seem quite right to me so I want to be sure.

Thank you

 

[Aelred_Minor]

It seems to me that three conclusions are possible.

1. A necessary being does exist
2. Nothing exists
3. Human reason does not have value

Since it is quite apparent that things exist (the fact that I am thinking about the issue seems to prove that even if I were to engage in total skepticism about the information gained by the senses), choices 2 and 3 would really go together.

For some time now it has seemed to me that there are ultimately only two rational choices for us, theism and total skepticism (and I mean total skepticism, including skepticism about skepticism).

 

[ibo]

Here is a proof I stumbled upon a while back when I was trying to determine if God existed or not. Maybe some of you guys here know where this is from (the quote, not the argument itself) Anyway, here it is:

But does the conclusion- that a necessary being exists- follow from the premise? It doesn’t seem quite right to me so I want to be sure.

Thank you

You may say so and no one can contradict you: an infinite number of causalities without end. But it is a question of jumping into the conclusion. That conclusion seems “funny”, without any logic, without sense. But things in this Universe make sense. There is a logic structure and the Universe is being studied by the brightest scientists of our planet. What would be the ligic of that infinite causality. where that came from? Who planned such a chain of events? No one? Strange, for everything seems to be planned in this world, for instance a car does not appear out of the blue! If someone planned, who was it?

You know, the theologians do not reject the idea of an infinite causality but planned by God.

Nevertheless, the Big Bang Theory suggests the contrary.

 

[tobias]

It should read ‘Therefore, there is a cause’.

 

[roads152]

coolduude, It seems that I have something similar in one of the previous posts regarding St. Thomas Aquinas’ five proofs of the existence of God.

 

[danserr]

Here is a proof I stumbled upon a while back when I was trying to determine if God existed or not. Maybe some of you guys here know where this is from (the quote, not the argument itself) Anyway, here it is:

But does the conclusion- that a necessary being exists- follow from the premise? It doesn’t seem quite right to me so I want to be sure.

Thank you

It’s a version of the cosmological argument from contingency. If I understand right, it looks similar to Leibniz’s form of the argument. Here are two versions (or same version phrased slightly differently):

**A. **- This version from Reason for the hope Within

1. There are contingent beings (at least some things might not have existed)
2. All contingent things are dependant (at least for their coming into existence) on something else.
3. Not everything can be dependant on something else. (Even if the chain of dependance looped back in on itself, the entire chain would be dependant and thus something outside the chain would be needed).
4. Thus a nondependant (necessary) thing exists (which explains dependant things). This is what we mean by God.

B. This version from Reasonable faith, also here: reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5847

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own existence or an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. The universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1)
5. the explanation of the universe is God (from 2).

The main way people try to attack such arguments is either to deny premise 1. These people will try to claim that it is false that everything has an explanation of its existence; some things just exist inexplicably.
-The other way people will attack this argument is to claim that the universe simply exists necessarily. It can’t not exist the way it does.

Both of these seem like stretches to me and neither plausible, so I think the argument from contingency is a pretty decent one.

Aquinas’s 3rd way is also a sort of argument from contingency, but someone else can mention that.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Here is a proof I stumbled upon a while back when I was trying to determine if God existed or not. Maybe some of you guys here know where this is from (the quote, not the argument itself) Anyway, here it is:

But does the conclusion- that a necessary being exists- follow from the premise? It doesn’t seem quite right to me so I want to be sure.

Thank you

That’s the contingency argument. If you use it, you will run into people claiming that an infinite universe would not need a cause. This is the first sign that you have encountered a rank amateur. That objection was defeated when Russell raised it in the 1948 Copleston debate.

As Copleston said…
**
I don’t believe that the infinity of the series of events – I mean a horizontal series, so to speak – if such an infinity could be proved, would be in the slightest degree relevant to the situation. If you add up chocolates you get chocolates after all and not a sheep. If you add up chocolates to infinity, you presumably get an infinite number of chocolates. So if you add up contingent beings to infinity, you still get contingent beings, not a Necessary Being. An infinite series of contingent beings will be, to my way of thinking, as unable to cause itself as one contingent being.**

It’s always fun to watch some smug so and so make an argument dead for more than 60 years, as though it’s the first time any of us heard it.

 

[James224]

Here is a proof I stumbled upon a while back when I was trying to determine if God existed or not. Maybe some of you guys here know where this is from (the quote, not the argument itself) Anyway, here it is:

But does the conclusion- that a necessary being exists- follow from the premise? It doesn’t seem quite right to me so I want to be sure.

Thank you

Your proof sounds like St. Thomas’ proof of the existence of God when he describes God as the Unmoved Mover. Everything is in motion and put into motion by a previous mover ,ie, there has to be a first mover which is the unmoved mover which is God. Something like that anyway.

 

[roads152]

One word was omitted while typing my previous post. It was “read.” My apologies
That post should have been
“coolduude, It seems that I have READ something similar in one of the previous posts regarding St. Thomas Aquinas’ five proofs of the existence of God.”
Reply With Quote

 

[belorg]

I don’t believe that the infinity of the series of events – I mean a horizontal series, so to speak – if such an infinity could be proved, would be in the slightest degree relevant to the situation. If you add up chocolates you get chocolates after all and not a sheep. If you add up chocolates to infinity, you presumably get an infinite number of chocolates. So if you add up contingent beings to infinity, you still get contingent beings, not a Necessary Being. An infinite series of contingent beings will be, to my way of thinking, as unable to cause itself as one contingent being.

There may be good arguments against an infinite regress of causes (I do not li,ke it myself), but this one certainly isn’t.
Of course an infinite regress of contingent beings means there is no necessary being, That’s the whole point. And of course, it wasn’t able to cause itself. The whole point of an infinite regress is that there is no first cause, so if there is no fist cuase, there is no cause ‘that caiused itself as a contingent being’, and at the same time, every single contingent cause has **another **contingent cause
Some people ask: What set this chain of events in motion? The answer is: The chnai of events was not set in motion; it has always been, is and will always be in motion.

Now, as I said, I am not fond of the infinite regress and there may be goood arguments against this, but the argument as it’s presented here seems an argument by a rank amateur.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…Of course an infinite regress of contingent beings means there is no necessary being, That’s the whole point…

No series of donuts add up to a baker. No series of ewes adds up to a sheep. No series of babies adds up to a mother and no series of contingent beings can be added up to a necessary being.

 

[belorg]

No series of donuts add up to a baker. No series of ewes adds up to a sheep. No series of babies adds up to a mother and no series of contingent beings can be added up to a necessary being.

Of course not, but the purpose of the infinite regress arguemnt is not to show that a series of contingent beings can be added up to a necessary being, but that there are no necessary beings and that, since the chain of events is eternal, the chain itself does not need a cause, the only things that need a cause are the individual beings in the chain, but they all have a cause in the preceding being.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…since the chain of events is eternal, the chain itself does not need a cause…

Not needing a cause means to be logically necessary. The argument does claim that an infinite series of contingent beings equals a necessary being.

 

[belorg]

Not needing a cause means to be logically necessary. The argument does claim that an infinite series of contingent beings equals a necessary being.

Not needing a cause does not mean logically necessary and the infinite regress argument does not in itself claim that, not does it entail such a thing.

But since I do not believe in an infinite regress, I don’t think it’s important anyway.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Not needing a cause does not mean logically necessary and the infinite regress argument does not in itself claim that, not does it entail such a thing.

How can a thing exist if it is not a necessary being and has no cause?

Isn’t that just like saying that a thing can exist for no reason whatsoever?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Not needing a cause does not mean logically necessary and the infinite regress argument does not in itself claim that, not does it entail such a thing…

As a necessary being is one that cannot fail to exist, that is exactly what it means to be logically necessary. Given that, the infinite regress argument does claim that an (infinite series of contingent beings = necessary being), then we can clearly demonstrate that the argument is a contradiction. A=notA.

 

[belorg]

As a necessary being is one that cannot fail to exist, that is exactly what it means to be logically necessary. Given that, the infinite regress argument does claim that an (infinite series of contingent beings = necessary being), then we can clearly demonstrate that the argument is a contradiction. A=notA.

If you really believe the infinite regress argument claims that, then I can only say you have successfully knocked down a strawman.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If you really believe the infinite regress argument claims that, then I can only say you have successfully knocked down a strawman.

Ok, lets examine your claim here. Previously you stated.

…since the chain of events is eternal, the chain itself does not need a cause…

1. …since… This word can be expressed as an equality from its context, =

2.…the chain of events is eternal,…

This statement can be expressed as infinite series of contingent beings, let this statement be (x)

3.…the chain itself does not need a cause…

This statement can be expressed asnecessary being let this statement be

Therefore this statement can be reduced to…**x=y ** (A=notA)!!!

Applying the Law of Identity we see an immediate contradiction. Therefore infinite regress arguments that fit the form of the statement that you mentioned are logical contradictions.

Of course no one making the argument wants to consider the entire series at once, that makes it easy to see the contradiction, instead they want to narrow it so the theist is forced to explain single elements. I don’t fall for that one, its a dirty trick, not a real argument.

 

[belorg]

Ok, lets examine your claim here. Previously you stated.

…since the chain of events is eternal, the chain itself does not need a cause…

1. …since… This word can be expressed as an equality from its context, =

2.…the chain of events is eternal,…

This statement can be expressed as infinite series of contingent beings, let this statement be (x)

3.…the chain itself does not need a cause…

This statement can be expressed asnecessary being let this statement be

Therefore this statement can be reduced to…**x=y ** (A=notA)!!!

Applying the Law of Identity we see an immediate contradiction. Therefore infinite regress arguments that fit the form of the statement that you mentioned are logical contradictions.

Of course no one making the argument wants to consider the entire series at once, that makes it easy to see the contradiction, instead they want to narrow it so the theist is forced to explain single elements. I don’t fall for that one, its a dirty trick, not a real argument.

I know that knocking down strawmen is much easier than refuting a real argument. And you have demonstrated this very clearly in your above ‘argument’

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I know that knocking down strawmen is much easier than refuting a real argument. And you have demonstrated this very clearly in your above ‘argument’

If you think I am wrong then you have a reason to think so yes? What is that reason? Where is the fault in the argument I made?