The Thomistic Cosmological Argument

[punkforchrist]

I’ve started this thread in light of a discussion with Spock. However, all are welcome to comment.

1. Every dependent being relies on another for its existence.

Few of us will doubt this. We observe that human persons, for instance, are dependent on their bodily organs functioning properly, the air they breathe, the food they eat, etc.

2. The series of dependent beings either proceeds to infinity, or is grounded in a self-existent being.

A being* is said to be self-existent if it exists by a necessity of its own nature, and does not depend on anything external to it.

3. The series cannot proceed to infinity.

Before I offer an argument, it’s important to understand what this premise is and isn’t stating. It’s not stating that a temporal regress cannot be infinite. We might think of a person’s existence as temporally dependent on his/her grandfather, but they’re not currently dependent on their grandfather’s existence (we might term this metaphysical dependence).

An example of metaphysical dependence is each part of a house being held up by the part underneath it. If one is removed, then whatever is held up by it will fall. (3) states that metaphysically dependent beings must be grounded in a self-existent being.

In support of this premise, think of a house without a foundation. Such a structure, no matter how large it is (even if it is infinitely-large, hypothetically), would undoubtedly collapse. Any time we remove the first member of a series, or hierarchy, we invariably remove all intermediate members. Hence, the series of dependent beings must be finite.

4. Therefore, a self-existent being exists.

The argument is logically valid, so if the premises are true, then the conclusion necessarily follows. If the first member of the series were dependent, then it wouldn’t be first, which is a contradiction. As a result, it must be independent (=self-existent).

Of course, we might ask: why does this self-existent being have to be God? I’ll give a concise answer for now, so as not to post too lengthy an OP. It is reasonable to infer that since effects have a certain likeness to their causes, that whatever is the source of power and intelligence will itself possess these attributes. Given that the universe exemplifies tremendous power and intelligence (notably, in human beings), we can soundly infer that the self-existent being is both enormously powerful and intelligent. I contend that such a being can legitimately be called “God”.

*If “being” is deemed too personal of a term, “entity” or “thing” can be substituted.

 

[hatsoff]

Please define “dependent” as you mean it in this context. For example, is something dependent iff it is caused?

 

[Spock]

I will not be in town today, but I will return tomorrow. I am sure you will have a nice thread by then.

In the meantime I will use “entity” (as you suggest) since it is the most neutral of the terms, and offer this: “The self-existing entity is called STEM - space, time, energy and matter” - which is a synonym for the physical universe. Space, time, energy and matter - simply exist, they cannot be created, nor destroyed. They form the foundaton of everything that exist.

 

[James_S_Saint]

1. Every dependent being relies on another for its existence. - true by definition (dependence)

2. The series of dependent beings either proceeds to infinity, or is grounded in a self-existent being. - lacking foundation. “grounded in self-existence” must be defined.

3. The series cannot proceed to infinity. - lacking foundation.

(3) states that metaphysically dependent beings must be grounded in a self-existent being.

In support of this premise, think of a house without a foundation. Such a structure, no matter how large it is (even if it is infinitely-large, hypothetically), would undoubtedly collapse. Any time we remove the first member of a series, or hierarchy, we invariably remove all intermediate members. Hence, the series of dependent beings must be finite.

• non-sequitor

4. Therefore, a self-existent being exists. - non-sequitor

 

[punkforchrist]

hatsoff:

Please define “dependent” as you mean it in this context. For example, is something dependent iff it is caused?

Something caused would qualify as dependent, yes. I wanted to avoid the use of the word “causation”, however, since that often (but not always) has connotations I don’t want to make.

If X is a positive necessary condition of Y, then Y is dependent on X.

 

[punkforchrist]

Hi James,

Could you provide more detail other than “non sequitur”? A non sequitur (“does not follow”) only results if the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Are you saying my arguments are logically invalid?

 

[punkforchrist]

Spock:

I will not be in town today, but I will return tomorrow. I am sure you will have a nice thread by then.

Lol yeah, a lot of times I’ll be gone for a day, only to find a hundred responses that I have no way of reading! Have fun, and stay safe.

In the meantime I will use “entity” (as you suggest) since it is the most neutral of the terms, and offer this: “The self-existing entity is called STEM - space, time, energy and matter” - which is a synonym for the physical universe. Space, time, energy and matter - simply exist, they cannot be created, nor destroyed. They form the foundaton of everything that exist.

“Entity” works just fine. I assume you mean that some part of the universe exists necessarily? After all, many things come into being and pass away from being. Do you mean that some fundamental particle of STEM exists by necessity, e.g. strings?

 

[James_S_Saint]

Hi James,

Could you provide more detail other than “non sequitur”? A non sequitur (“does not follow”) only results if the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Are you saying my arguments are logically invalid?

Yes. It is logically invalid.

You have made a premise that states “this series cannot be infinite”. Where did that come from?

 

[punkforchrist]

James S Saint:

Yes. It is logically invalid.

Thanks for clarifying.

You have made a premise that states “this series cannot be infinite”. Where did that come from?

It’s just an additional premise. It can’t be deduced from (1) and (2).

The support for (3) that I offered is in the form of an inductive argument. We observe that whenever a first member is removed, subsequent intermediate members are, as well. If we remove the foundation of a house, the entire structure will collapse.

I still don’t understand what you mean by calling this a non sequitur. The following is logically valid:

1’. Every mammal is an animal.
2’. The number of mammals is either less than fifty, or greater than fifty.
3’. The number is not less than fifty.
4’. Therefore, the number of mammals is greater than fifty.

Just as support for (3’) isn’t contingent on (1’) and/or (2’), neither is (3) contingent on (1) and/or (2). One might very well deny one of the premises, but if the premises are correct, then (4) and (4’) necessarily follow. The opponent of such an argument wouldn’t be right in saying that it is logically invalid. Instead, they would have to contend that the argument is unsound.

 

[James_S_Saint]

If you provide non-sequitor foundation to what you call a premise, 1) It is not actually a premise (not needing argument), but also 2) because the foundation was non-sequitor, the rest of the dependent argument becomes non-sequitor.

But in both cases, you have actually merely made a tautological argument. Tautology is not valid argument due to it not really saying anything.

Your (3) actually states your conclusion in different words.

Basically you have stated;

1. something exists
2. what exists is not dependent
3. the something that exists is God.

 

[punkforchrist]

James S Saint:

If you provide non-sequitor foundation to what you call a premise, 1) It is not actually a premise (not needing argument), but also 2) because the foundation was non-sequitor, the rest of the dependent argument becomes non-sequitor.

But in both cases, you have actually merely made a tautological argument. Tautology is not valid argument due to it not really saying anything.

I agree that (1) and (2) are tautologies, but tautologies are still meaningful. Only in conjunction with (3) is the argument sound.

Your (3) actually states your conclusion in different words.

Basically you have stated;

1. something exists
2. what exists is not dependent
3. the something that exists is God.

(3) only states that there cannot be an infinite regress of dependent things. The conclusion that the self-existent being is God isn’t contained in (3), but is only arrived at after considering what a self-existent being must be like.

 

[James_S_Saint]

No, I’m sorry, I wasn’t saying that (1) and (2) are tautological. I was saying that the entire argument is.

Perhaps if written this way;

1. God is an existence that is independent
2. There is an existence
3. That existence is independent
4. Thus, God is that existence.

That is logical, but it really doesn’t say anything that isn’t obvious from the first premise.

Not to mention that your (3) happens to be incorrect.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Is this an argument that Thomas actually made?

 

[wussup]

This is sort of similar to another thread going now…

Your argument sounds like it was influenced by Spinoza… I will make my personal observation (I am sure it will be accepted quite critically) in green. I will also show where some of your statements sound Spinoza influenced in purple. If you do not think it is relevant, let me know and I will drop it.

1. Every dependent being relies on another for its existence.
The transitive verb correlates to the adjective sufficiently to create a definitive form.
All Spinoza works are in ‘Ethics’…First in definition II, A thing is called finite after its kind, when it can be limited by another thing of the same nature; for instance, a body is called finite because we always conceive another greater body. Then he defines (definition III) the independent Substance (Spinoza later names ‘Substance’ to be ‘God’) as conceived through itself: in other words, that of which a conception can be formed independently of any other conception";

2. The series of dependent beings either proceeds to infinity, or is grounded in a self-existent being.

Much as I hate to agree with Mnsr. Saint , the terms ‘infinity’ and a ‘grounded self-existent being’ are vague.
Speaking in the language of Spinoza however, the terms are fairly clear. According to definition II (given above), a finite being is ‘limited’ or ‘caused’ by another finite being; and dfn VII goes on to say, “On the other hand, that thing is necessary, or rather constrained, which is determined by something external to itself to a fixed and definite method of existence or action”.

A being* is said to be self-existent if it exists by a necessity of its own nature, and does not depend on anything external to it.

This sounds a lot like Spinoza’s definition of perfect freedom, “which exists solely by the necessity of its own nature, and of which the action is determined by itself alone” (Part I, Def. VII).

3. The series cannot proceed to infinity.
I don’t understand why it cannot extend to infinite from your argument…

4. Therefore, a self-existent being exists.

The argument is logically valid…

I have questions about ‘3’, so this is not necessarily true.

 

[wussup]

No, I’m sorry, I wasn’t saying that (1) and (2) are tautological. I was saying that the entire argument is.

Perhaps if written this way;

1. God is an existence that is independent
2. There is an existence
3. That existence is independent
4. Thus, God is that existence.

It has been a while, but isn’t this a syllogistic error, having more than 2 propositions?

 

[wussup]

The following is logically valid:

1’. Every mammal is an animal.
2’. The number of mammals is either less than fifty, or greater than fifty.
3’. The number is not less than fifty.
4’. Therefore, the number of mammals is greater than fifty.

Just as support for (3’) isn’t contingent on (1’) and/or (2’), neither is (3) contingent on (1) and/or (2). One might very well deny one of the premises, but if the premises are correct, then (4) and (4’) necessarily follow. The opponent of such an argument wouldn’t be right in saying that it is logically invalid. Instead, they would have to contend that the argument is unsound.

And again, I believe this is a syllogistic error because it has more than 2 propositions. It also is not logical because it is a fallacy of insufficient options. If the number of mammals is not less than fifty, it does not have to be greater than fifty, it could be 50. Finally, the first proposition does not contain a part of the premise included in the conclusion, specifically, animals has no relevance to the number of mammals. Maybe I am just not getting the question, eh Mnsr. Saint?

 

[James_S_Saint]

It has been a while, but isn’t this a syllogistic error, having more than 2 propositions?

The first 3 were supposed to be premises. I was just restating what it seemed that punk was saying.

 

[RobbyS]

I’ve started this thread in light of a discussion with Spock. However, all are welcome to comment.

1. Every dependent being relies on another for its existence.

Few of us will doubt this. We observe that human persons, for instance, are dependent on their bodily organs functioning properly, the air they breathe, the food they eat, etc.

2. The series of dependent beings either proceeds to infinity, or is grounded in a self-existent being.

A being* is said to be self-existent if it exists by a necessity of its own nature, and does not depend on anything external to it.

3. The series cannot proceed to infinity.

Before I offer an argument, it’s important to understand what this premise is and isn’t stating. It’s not stating that a temporal regress cannot be infinite. We might think of a person’s existence as temporally dependent on his/her grandfather, but they’re not currently dependent on their grandfather’s existence (we might term this metaphysical dependence).

An example of metaphysical dependence is each part of a house being held up by the part underneath it. If one is removed, then whatever is held up by it will fall. (3) states that metaphysically dependent beings must be grounded in a self-existent being.

In support of this premise, think of a house without a foundation. Such a structure, no matter how large it is (even if it is infinitely-large, hypothetically), would undoubtedly collapse. Any time we remove the first member of a series, or hierarchy, we invariably remove all intermediate members. Hence, the series of dependent beings must be finite.

4. Therefore, a self-existent being exists.

The argument is logically valid, so if the premises are true, then the conclusion necessarily follows. If the first member of the series were dependent, then it wouldn’t be first, which is a contradiction. As a result, it must be independent (=self-existent).

Of course, we might ask: why does this self-existent being have to be God? I’ll give a concise answer for now, so as not to post too lengthy an OP. It is reasonable to infer that since effects have a certain likeness to their causes, that whatever is the source of power and intelligence will itself possess these attributes. Given that the universe exemplifies tremendous power and intelligence (notably, in human beings), we can soundly infer that the self-existent being is both enormously powerful and intelligent. I contend that such a being can legitimately be called “God”.

*If “being” is deemed too personal of a term, “entity” or “thing” can be substituted.

And if we look at the word “substance,” it reminds us that being depends on something, the whole of time and space on “something”. The image of the world resting on the back of a great turtle is somehow appropriate.

 

[punkforchrist]

James S Saint:

No, I’m sorry, I wasn’t saying that (1) and (2) are tautological. I was saying that the entire argument is.

Perhaps if written this way;

1. God is an existence that is independent
2. There is an existence
3. That existence is independent
4. Thus, God is that existence.

That is logical, but it really doesn’t say anything that isn’t obvious from the first premise.

If this is true, then there’s no such thing as a sound deductive argument.

Is this an argument that Thomas actually made?

It’s not an exact duplication, but it’s based largely on his argument in De Ente et Essentia

 

[punkforchrist]

wassup:

And again, I believe this is a syllogistic error because it has more than 2 propositions.

A syllogism can have multiple premises, or propositions.

It also is not logical because it is a fallacy of insufficient options. If the number of mammals is not less than fifty, it does not have to be greater than fifty, it could be 50.

Point granted. We can just change the counter-argument to this:

1’. Every mammal is an animal.
2’. The number of mammals is either less than fifty, or greater than or equal to fifty.
3’. The number is not less than fifty.
4’. Therefore, the number of mammals is greater than or equal to fifty.

Finally, the first proposition does not contain a part of the premise included in the conclusion, specifically, animals has no relevance to the number of mammals.

Fair enough. Let’s revise the original argument:

1. Every being that exists is either dependent or self-existent.
2. It is not the case that every being is dependent.
3. Therefore, a self-existent being exists.

This also meets the standard of two premises.