Most of the traditional objections to arguments for God’s existence developed out of issues first posed by David Hume and Immanuel Kant. The following is a format of how this section will be presented (roughly). This lists first arguments for God’s existence followed by the objections to the existence of God. The objections are responses to points raised by Christian apologists and then this is followed by my response.(NOTE: If you don't know the traditional arguments for the existence of God, please do not continue reading this particular section. It may get very confusing, because knowledge of the traditional arguments are already assumed.)
Finite Causes for Finite Beings Christian use: The cosmological argument reasons from a finite effect to an infinite Cause (God). Atheist/other: Challenge this conclusion by insisting that all one needs to account for a finite effect is a finite cause. Positing an infinite Cause is metaphysical overkill. Response: However, every finite being or effect is limited, and every limited being is only adequately explained if it were caused by some Being that is not limited. The first Cause is the unlimited limiter of every limited thing. If this Cause were limited (i.e., caused), it would need a cause beyond itself by which to ground its limited existence. Inescapably, every limited being is caused. But Pure Actuality, or Existence as such, is unlimited. And the Actuality that provides the limits for everything else that is actualized must itself be unlimited in its existence. The first Cause must be uncaused, and an Uncaused Cause must be the unlimited or infinite Cause of everything else.
No Necessary Being Atheist/other: It is urged that such terms as Necessary Being and Uncaused Cause are meaningless, since nothing in our experience corresponds to them. This is not a valid objection. The very sentence, “A Necessary Being has no meaning,” is meaningless unless the words necessary being can be defined. The claim is self-defeating. Response: There is nothing incoherent among such terms if they are not contradictory. We know what contingent means, and necessary is the opposite, namely, “noncontingent.” The meanings of these terms are derived from their relationship to what is dependent upon them. And these meanings are twofold: First, the terms necessary and infinite are negative. Necessary means “not contingent.” Infinite means “not finite.” We know what these limitations mean from experience, and, by contrast, we know that God does not have any of them. A negative term does not denote a negative attribute. It is not the affirmation of nothing; rather, it is the negation of all contingency and limitation in the first Cause. The positive content of what God is derives from the causal principle. He is Actuality because he causes all actuality. He is Being since he is the Cause of all being. However, as Cause of all being his being cannot be caused. As the Ground of all contingent being, he must be a Necessary (noncontingent) Being.
Unprovable Causality.Christian use: Since all forms of the cosmological argument depend on the principle of causality, it would fail without the principle. Atheist/other: But can that principle be proved? (Normally we think it is obvious, based on experience.) But experience may be illusion. Everything not based on experience is simply a tautology, that is, true only by definition and so not proof in itself. Response: This critique springs from Hume’s epistemological atomism—that all empirical impressions are “entirely loose and separate.” Hume believed necessary causal connection could not be established empirically from sensible experience. But causality is supported by metaphysical necessity. We need not rely solely on empirical observation. Hume himself never denied that things have a cause for their existence. He said, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause” (Hume, 1:187).
It would be ontologically ill-advised to suppose that something could arise from nothing. The principle of causality used by Aquinas is that “every limited being has a cause for its existence.” This principle is based in the fundamental reality that nonexistence cannot cause existence; nothing cannot produce something. It takes a producer to produce.
The need for a cause of existence is rooted in the nature of finite, changing beings as composed of existence (actuality or act) and essence (potentiality or potency). Existence as such is unlimited; all limited existence is being limited by something distinct from existence itself (this limiting factor will be called “essence”); whatever is being limited is being caused, for to be limited in being is to be caused to be in a certain finite way. A limited existence is a caused existence.
Rather, all limited beings are composed beings, composed of existence and essence. Their essence limits the kind of existence they can have. Likewise, an unlimited Being is an uncomposed Being (i.e., a Simple Being). Such a Being has no limiting essence as such. Its essence is identical to its unlimited existence. The need for causality, then, is derived from an analysis of what finite being is. Upon examination, finite being is seen to be caused being, and caused being must have a cause.
Contradictions from Causality. Response: Many nontheists misunderstand the principle of causality. They assume the principle insists that “every thing has a cause.” If this were true it would follow that one should never stop seeking a cause, even for God. However, the principle should not be stated: “Every being has a cause.” Rather, it is “Every finite , contingent being has a cause.” In this way there is no contradiction between a First Cause, which is not contingent, and the principle of causality, which holds that all finite beings need a cause. Once one arrives at an infinite and necessary being, there is no need to seek a further cause. A necessary being explains (grounds) its own existence. It exists because it must exist. It cannot not exist. Only what can not exist (namely, a contingent being) needs an explanation. To ask of a necessary being why it exists is like asking why necessity must be necessary, or why circles must be round.
Atheist/other: An Infinite Series of Causes. One objection to the cosmological argument is that a First Cause is unneeded because an infinite series of causes is possible. Infinite series are common to mathematics. Response: The suggestion of an infinite series is only raised in the horizontal (kalam) form of the cosmological argument. In the vertical form of Thomas Aquinas, the very first cause outside of a finite, contingent, changing being must be infinite and uncaused. This is so, because every finite being needs a cause. Hence, one finite being cannot cause the existence of another. There cannot be even one intermediate link between the Creator and his creatures. The very first cause outside of beings whose existence is being actualized must be the Actualizer of being.
Mathematically infinite series are possible, but not actual ones. The former are abstract; the latter are concrete. It is possible to have an infinite number of points on one line on this page. But one cannot get an infinite number of letters on this line, no matter how small they are. Points are abstract or theoretical entities; a series of causes of existence is comprised of actual entities. An infinite number of the former are possible, but not of the latter. The reason for this is simple: No matter how many dominos one has in a line, one more could be added. The number cannot be infinite.
Furthermore, an infinite series of simultaneous and existentially dependent causes is not possible. There must be a here-and-now ground for a simultaneous series of causes, none of which would otherwise have a ground for its existence. An ungrounded infinite regress is tantamount to affirming that the existence in the series arises from nonexistence, since no cause in the series has a real ground for its existence. Or, if one cause in the series grounds the existence of the others, then it must be a First Cause, but then the series is not infinite. Otherwise the cause causes its own existence, while it is causing the existence of everything else in the series. That is impossible.
The Invalid Ontological Argument. Atheist/other: Kant believed that ontological sleight-of-hand imports a Necessary Being into every cosmological argument. Response: Such a move invalidly argues from experience to necessity. This criticism is not applicable to the metaphysical form of the cosmological argument.
Since the cosmological argument begins with existence, not thought, it does not have to smuggle existence into the equation. The first premise is, “Something exists.” There is no beginning with “that from which nothing greater can be conceived,” by which Anselm began his ontological argument.
The cosmological argument proceeds with principles grounded in reality, not in thought. They are ontologically grounded principles, rather than rationally inescapable ideas. It is based on metaphysical truth that “Nothing cannot cause something,” rather than the rational assertion that “Everything must have a sufficient reason”. The argument concludes with “Pure Actuality is the cause of existence for all limited existence,” rather than with “a Being which logically cannot not be.”
The Concept of Necessity Atheist/other: One objection is that the principle of necessity applies only to logical constructs or ideas, not to real-life existence. In fact necessary is misapplied to the “Necessary Being” of the cosmological argument. Response: This argument fails because the objection is self-defeating. Either the statement “Necessity does not apply to real life” is itself a statement about existence, or else it is not. If it is a statement about existence, it is self-defeating, for it claims to be both necessary and about reality, while it is saying no necessary statements can be made about reality. If it is merely a metastatement, or statement about statements (and not really a statement about reality), then it is uninformative about what kind of statements may or may not be made about reality.
Atheist/other: Critics claim to “know” that necessity does not apply to being because there is no Necessary Being. There is no valid way in advance, while looking at the argument for God’s existence, to know if a Necessary Being exists. Response: The concept of necessity is not contradictory. It simply means not-contingent, which is a coherent idea. But if there is no a priori way to know that a Necessary Being cannot exist, then it is possible that necessity truly may apply to being, namely, if a Necessary Being does, in fact, exist.
Metaphysical Contradictions
Kant offered several alleged contradictions or antinomies that he thought result from applying cosmological argumentation to reality. At least three of these antinomies apply to the cosmological argument.
|
