Posts
In the world of sensible things 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, whether the intermediate cause be several, or one only. 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, or 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.
This proof rests not only on what I trust is the self-evident proposition that, by definition and logical necessity, there is no first member of an infinite regression; but that, in the matter of cause and effect, if there is no first member, there also can be no subsequent members of the set, because each effect relies for its existence on the prior cause, and the prior existence of the cause.
Therefore, the mere fact that anything at all exists proves the existence of a first, uncaused cause of all—a Creator God.
This proof is more or less from Aristotle and Plato, and so has stood without being disproved for over two thousand years.
Some believe it was disproved by Hume’s attack on cause and effect itself—Hume argues there is no such thing. It seems to me, though, that Hume’s argument against cause and effect is itself self-contradictory. He argues that cause and effect cannot be proven to exist, but may merely be assumed by us through long habit of seeing one event succeed another. Yet the connection between the two may be something other than the first causing the second, for all we know.
Problem: in order to make this argument, Hume is assuming it is _caused_ by a specific perception, that of one thing following another. I.e., he is already assuming cause and effect. Without already assuming cause and effect, his argument that they do not exist falls apart. Hence his argument contradicts itself.
Hence, the cosmological proof is still valid.
Even were it not so, too few notice that, if Hume’s position is correct, the most immediate casualty is science, not the existence of God. If Hume is right, science is impossible. Yet it works; empirical proof that Hume is wrong.
6 comments:
Steve, I can tell Aquina's argument is your baby. And, you are implying it is fullproof because it has been around for so long and because other brilliant philosophers have not cracked it. And yet, I have.
Aquina, as quoted by you, said, "No thing known to be an efficient cause in itself." Gravity sufficiently explains what gets the extistential ball rolling. Who made gravity? Nobody, nothing, it is what it is, a natural force of energy. Others have said along the lines, "God is because he is." Or, directly from the Bible God says to Moses, "I AM." And people take this as ontological proof.
However, whereas I can see gravity, show it, predict what it will do, you can do none of this to show your god. I not only say "gravity is," but also, I can back what I say with empirical proof.
On top of this, there is no proof of an ultimate beginning. As far as we can tell, matter is infinite, constantly coming together, forever coming apart, to creat what has been, what is and what will be.
On top of all this, even if there was a 1st cause, there's no proof whatsoever it was a god. In fact, there are mountains of evidence that prooves god was invented by man, not the other way around. In fact, everything we can prove occurs naturally, without the conscious effort of a supernatural entity.
EJ:
Gravity sufficiently explains what gets the extistential ball rolling. Who made gravity? Nobody, nothing, it is what it is,
SR:
Not so, Jeff. Gravity, gravitational pull, according to Newton and Einstein, is caused by mass. And its action is rather limited.
EJ:
… directly from the Bible God says to Moses, "I AM." And people take this as ontological proof.
SR:
I have never heard anybody but you confuse that with an ontological proof.
EJ:
However, whereas I can see gravity,
SR:
In fact, you cannot see gravity. You can see its effects.
EJ:
show it, predict what it will do, you can do none of this to show your god. I not only say "gravity is," but also, I can back what I say with empirical proof.
SR:
I don’t recall the existence of gravity being in dispute here. Its existence is disputed, mind you, by scientists. The quest for a unified field theory is a quest to demonstrate that gravity is an illusion, and another force is responsible for its apparent effects, along with those of electromagnetism and subatomic forces.
As noted, there is far more certain proof of the existence of God than of gravity.
The big picture is that gravity and mass work together to create existence. Perfect parsimony. No God required.
You have never hear anyone claim "I AM," as an ontological proof? That's funny, I read about this argument in the current issue of Philosophy Now magazine, an article intitled "A Brilliant Masterpiece," with the subtile, "...on the ontological argument for God's existence."
Guess you're not as well read as you thought you were. But don't worry. I have already learned that you are impervious to admitting you are wrong, no matter how obvious it is that you are.
EJ:
The big picture is that gravity and mass work together to create existence. Perfect parsimony. No God required.
SR:
So let’s see; existence began when, at the same time, mass created gravity, while gravity created mass.
It’s not going to work, Jeff. A cause must exist prior to its effect. Your theory requires mass and gravity to both be prior to one another.
EJ:
You have never hear anyone claim "I AM," as an ontological proof? That's funny, I read about this argument in the current issue of Philosophy Now magazine, an article intitled "A Brilliant Masterpiece," with the subtile, "...on the ontological argument for God's existence."
SR:
My guess is that you misread it. “I am, therefore I am,” is not a logical proof.
EJ:
Guess you're not as well read as you thought you were.
SR:
Thanks for the backhanded compliment. I’ve never claimed here to be well-read. I guess it just seems that obvious to you?
There is no beginning or end to gravity and matter. THEY ARE. And, I can say this with emperirical evidence, (unlike the existence of a god).
Re the I AM argument: buy the issue and read it yourself if you don't believe me. The article is by Miriam Abbot.
God tells Moses: "I AM THAT I AM" Abbot: "In other words, God exists because the deity's definition is existence."
Abbot thinks the last part of the clause "I AM" is the strength of the argument.
However, as I have already proven countless times, the conclusion counts on the antecedent. Thus, the argument, like all of Aquinas' is invalid.
I have seen copies of Philosophy Now in the past. Sadly, it is not available in Qatar. Ms. Abbot may well have sought to see an ontological proof in the tetragrammaton, YHWH. If so, novel and interesting thesis.
Post a Comment