Aquinas, Hume, and the Cosmological Argument
I’m trying to understand the cosmological argument and objections to it. I’m looking for feedback on my understanding of one of Aquinas’ version of the argument and two criticisms of it.
I’ll begin with my understanding of Aquinas’ efficient cause versions of the cosmological argument. Aquinas seems to give two premises for the conclusion that there must be a first cause that is uncaused, which we call “God.” He states the first premise as follows: “Nothing can be its own first cause, since then it would have to exist prior to itself and this is impossible.” He states the second premise as follows: “Now it is impossible for a line of efficient causes to extend to infinity.” The argument thus appears to take the following form:
1. Every event has a cause.
2. There can be no infinite regress of causes.
3. Thus, there must be a first, uncaused cause (God).
One criticism of the argument is that the two premises contradict one another. If every event has a cause, then it would seem that there must be an infinite regress of causes; if there can be no infinite regress of causes, then there must be an event that is uncaused. Aquinas responds to this objection by arguing that God is not the efficient cause of the second event, but that he is the uncaused cause of the chain of causes “as a whole.” Thus, he argues, there is no contradiction between the two premises.
Hume’s criticism seems to be that the second premise is unsupported. In particular, he seems to argue that an uncaused first cause is unnecessary to explain the chain of causes and effects. To explain a chain of causes only requires that we explain each causal “link” in the chain and not the chain “as a whole.” Thus, the claim in the second premise the there can be no infinite regress of causes is simply an unsupported assumption. For all we know, there might well be an infinite regress of causes, despite that this idea seems counterintuitive.
I have two questions. First, is this reconstruction of the argument and these objections to it correct? Second, how might one respond to Hume?
I’ll begin with my understanding of Aquinas’ efficient cause versions of the cosmological argument. Aquinas seems to give two premises for the conclusion that there must be a first cause that is uncaused, which we call “God.” He states the first premise as follows: “Nothing can be its own first cause, since then it would have to exist prior to itself and this is impossible.” He states the second premise as follows: “Now it is impossible for a line of efficient causes to extend to infinity.” The argument thus appears to take the following form:
1. Every event has a cause.
2. There can be no infinite regress of causes.
3. Thus, there must be a first, uncaused cause (God).
One criticism of the argument is that the two premises contradict one another. If every event has a cause, then it would seem that there must be an infinite regress of causes; if there can be no infinite regress of causes, then there must be an event that is uncaused. Aquinas responds to this objection by arguing that God is not the efficient cause of the second event, but that he is the uncaused cause of the chain of causes “as a whole.” Thus, he argues, there is no contradiction between the two premises.
Hume’s criticism seems to be that the second premise is unsupported. In particular, he seems to argue that an uncaused first cause is unnecessary to explain the chain of causes and effects. To explain a chain of causes only requires that we explain each causal “link” in the chain and not the chain “as a whole.” Thus, the claim in the second premise the there can be no infinite regress of causes is simply an unsupported assumption. For all we know, there might well be an infinite regress of causes, despite that this idea seems counterintuitive.
I have two questions. First, is this reconstruction of the argument and these objections to it correct? Second, how might one respond to Hume?
Comments (53)
No, this would imply that every event is caused by another event, which is not what the first premiss asserts. The conclusion is that there must be a first cause that is uncaused, not a first event that is uncaused. The overall claim, of course, is that God caused the first event.
Quoting ModernPAS
As I understand it, the supporting argument is that there cannot have been an actual infinite series of causes, because it never would have been completed by reaching the present.
As for how to respond to Hume - well, premise 2 is self-evidently true. So his claim that it is unsupported - it claim it he did - is false. The reason of most people represents it to be true. Which is excellent evidence that it is true.
No, the exact opposite of what you say!
The whole point of the argument is to establish that not all causation can be by events.
If all causation was event-causation, then you get an infinity of past causes (which is an impossibility). Thus some events must be caused by things rather than events.
The first cause or causes must therefore be 'substance-causes' rather than 'event causes'.
I do not think that's true. I think this example is Kant's, but I am not sure. But imagine there is a cushion with a lead ball on it. The lead ball is causing an indentation in the cushion. But now imagine that they have both always existed in that arrangement. Well, it is still true that the ball is causing the indentation, even though there was no time prior to the indentation when it was caused.
More accurately, every series of events has a first uncaused cause.
Quoting Bartricks
Which is exactly what I said; please read more carefully.
Quoting Bartricks
already addressed that--"then it would have to exist prior to itself and this is impossible.”
Quoting Bartricks
This is not a counterexample, because the indentation is not causing itself.
Quoting aletheist
Which is just wrong. It is not what the argument implies. the argument implies the exact opposite. You learn to read - learn to read yourself!
Quoting aletheist
Er, it is a counterexample. The claim that nothing can cause itself is a conclusion. One derived from the premise that one cause needs to precede another. The example shows that one thing can cause another without preceding it. So, the example challenges the premise from which the conclusion was derived. It was not, then, an example of something causing itself, but an example of causation that is not prior causation.
Quoting ModernPAS
Quoting aletheist
I was correcting the mistake in the OP. You and I are in agreement here--it is false that every event is caused by another event.
Quoting Bartricks
Okay, but it still does not demonstrate that something can cause itself. Besides, if the ball and cushion "have always existed in that arrangement," then nothing caused the indentation, since the cushion was never in any other shape.
That does not - not - imply that every event is caused by another event. That's just something you said, it is not something stated by any premise in the OP's argument or in the conclusion. Indeed, the conclusion is the exact opposite.
Quoting aletheist
I said that I didn't see why something could not cause itself. I showed that the assumption that all causation requires a cause that is prior to its effect is false. Hence why I do not see why something cannot be the cause of itself. Again: Aquinas, it would seem, attempted an explanation. I pointed out that the explanation appears not to work. Thus, I do not see why something cannot cause itself.
That is an unwarranted assumption that is not even part of the argument as presented in the OP. In fact, it directly contradicts its very first premiss--"Every event has a cause."
Quoting Bartricks
No, you did not. If the indentation has always existed, then nothing caused it--not the ball, not the cushion, and certainly not the indentation itself.
That there must be an event that is uncaused is reasoning that I think can only apply to linear models of the universe.
One alternative to this are the cyclical models of the universe. Here, there would be no uncaused events, for there would be an endless procession of Big Bangs followed by near ends of the universe that again result in Big Bangs, etc. ... this, again, without end or beginning.
Quoting aletheist
That's counter-intuitive. If we saw the ball on the cushion we would say that the ball was causing the indentation. Finding out that the ball has always been on the cushion does not call that into question. It's irrelevant.
Right, the result of a cause is just what an event is. An "uncaused event" is a self-contradiction.
Quoting Bartricks
Lots of true propositions, especially in philosophy, are counterintuitive.
Quoting Bartricks
On the contrary, it entails that nothing caused the indentation, since there was no event of changing its shape.
Er, no. The whole point of the argument is to establish that some events - so, some happenings, occurences, whatever - must be caused by things that are not events. That is, some events are caused by substances. Objects rather than occurrences.
You just don't follow the argument. It is used to demonstrate that in addition to event causation - which is causation by something undergoing a change - there must also be 'substance causation' - which is where an object causes something to happen without itself undergoing any change.
Yes, and that's prima face evidence that they are false.
It is clear to the reason of most that if A is bigger than B, and B is bigger than C, then A must be bigger than C.
It is counterintuitive to claim that if A is bigger than B, and B is bigger than C, then A can be smaller than C.
And precisely because it is so counterintuitive - that is, contradicts some of the clearest and most widely corroborated deliverances of our reason - we have reason to believe it is false.
Premise 2 of the argument is highly intuitively. And that is good default evidence it is true.
Rejecting it becusae it doesn't fit with one's favourite worldview is incompetent. It is like a detective just ignoring some evidence because it doesn't fit with her favourite theory about who did it.
What are you talking about? I not only follow the argument, I agree with it. Indeed, "there must also be 'substance causation,'" but that is exactly the opposite of claiming that there are uncaused events.
Quoting Bartricks
Which argument? The one in the OP? I agree with that premiss, and even offered a supporting argument for it.
Quoting Bartricks
My worldview has nothing to do with it. If the indentation has always been present, then nothing caused it.
This is just incompetent. It is intuitively obvious that the ball is causing the indentation. if I showed you the ball on the cushion and asked you the cause of the indentation, you - and everyone else possessed of reason and not in the grips of a theory - would agree that the cause was the ball. And you'd all agree to that without having to know whether the ball had always been there or not.
Anyway, it 'is' a counterexample to the claim that to be caused by something is for the causation to have preceded its effect. And thus we do not yet have good evidence that something cannot be he cause of itself.
Here is what you said that started us down this road.
Quoting Bartricks
What is required to avoid an infinite regress is an event that is caused by a substance, rather than another event--not an event that is uncaused.
Because I would (understandably) assume that the cushion was previously undeformed, until the ball caused the indentation. Upon being informed that the ball and cushion were eternally in that configuration, I would then deny that anything caused the indentation. Only changes (events) require causes in the sense that is relevant here.
I mean, you can't deny it is being indented, surely. It is being indented. And it is being indented by the ball. It was being indented by it a minute ago. And it is being indented by it now. And it has always been being indented by it.
And if we took the ball off the cushion, it would become less indented. And if someone said of the partial indent on the now ball-less cushion, "what was the cause of that indent?" we would say "oh, there was a ball on it". yes?
An uncaused cause, not causer. The first doesn't entail a psyche as the second does. Makes for a very significant difference.
I agree that the argument presented in the OP establishes the need for an uncaused (substance) cause. However, the very next paragraph makes the statement that I found problematic.
Quoting ModernPAS
Quoting aletheist
That is why I politely asked you to read more carefully.
I honestly thought that we were addressing the question, "What caused the cushion to be indented in the first place?" I am not seeing how this other question is relevant to the OP.
Quoting Bartricks
I always try to do so, but admittedly do not always succeed. My point was simply that the argument does not require an uncaused event; i.e., I was (gently) trying to correct the mistake in the OP.
Hmm, a causer does not convey "someone or something that causes"?
As an aside, the unmoved mover of old time philosophies - i.e. the uncaused cause - can neither be a sentient being nor a thing: Sentience only occurs via the experience of perpetual change and, hence, movement; and things can only be in some form of process and, hence, movement.
Still, hey, seems that we have different interpretations of terms.
You haven't answered my question. The cushion is being indented. If we were to take the ball off the cushion, and someone asked us the cause of the indent on it, we would say "there was a ball on it" - yes?
So, the cushion is being indented by the ball. Yet the indent -which his being caused by the ball - was not caused by some prior event of the ball coming to be on the cushion, for it was always on the cushion.
Thus, our reason permits there to be cases of causation - such as the ball's on-going causing of the indent - in which there is no prior event that led to the effect. The ball is having an effect on the cushion, but there was no time when it wasn't.
Thus, the claim that something cannot be the cause of itself because that would require itself to exist prior to itself, is false. That does not seem to be required as the ball case shows.
That does not mean that self-creation is possible. It just means we have not been provided with compelling evidence that it is not.
As for the rest - you are just stipulating.
Not every event can have an event that causes it, for then we'll have an actual infinity of events and you can't have an actual infinity of anything. That's self-evident to the reason of most.
So, some events must be caused by things other than events, namely objects.
Your insistence that the uncaused causer cannot be a 'thing' is false. Certainly you've said nothing to support it.
Manifestly, then, some events have objects that cause them.
What kind of an object?
Well, not any kind of material object - for all material objects, being complex, must have been caused to exist.
We can't have an infinity of material objects any more than we can have an infinity of causes.
So, therefore the kind of object or objects that initiate causal chains must be immaterial.
The first cause or causes must therefore be immaterial objects.
That's still not an agent, but it is getting closer, for it also seems that agents - minds - are immaterial objects.
Quoting javraQuoting Bartricks
Yup, we speak in different lexicons. It seems far too different to have any meaningful conversation.
Bartricks said "causer" rather than "cause". So I have literally no idea - no idea - at all what he is talking about. And then he did some nasty arguing thing where he demonstrated that things I don't want to be true are true. And that was mean and so now I am going to climb mount righteousness and go and find someone else to stipulate at. Goodbyer.
If the cushion has always been indented, then it is not being indented, it simply is indented.
Quoting Bartricks
No, not if I knew that the cushion had always been indented; then I would say, "Nothing caused the indent, it has always been that way."
The problem with appealing to what is supposedly "intuitive" is that it is not necessarily the same for everyone.
I mean, that's the point of the example. It shows that something can be causing something else - and whatever you say, regular people would say that the ball was the cause of the indent and would not ask first "has it always been on the cushion?" - without being a prior cause.
How do you know that, if the ball was always on it? Maybe that is just the natural shape of the cushion, and the ball has nothing to do with it.
Suppose instead that a cushion is manufactured with an indent that happens to be just the right size and shape for someone to place the ball there years later. If I subsequently ask you what is causing the indent, what would you say?
The original paradox goes something like this:
There are an infinite number of Grim Reapers that each have a deadline at which he is scheduled to kill person X. If X is alive at a time that a Grim Reaper is scheduled to kill X, he will kill X. If X is not alive, the Grim Reaper does nothing. Grim Reaper 1 is scheduled to kill X at 9:00AM, Grim Reaper 2 at 8:30AM, Grim Reaper 3 at 8:15AM, and so on continuously being scheduled at half the minute hand of the previous Grim Reaper for an infinite number of Grim Reapers. If you were to pick any of the Grim Reapers, X would not be alive when it becomes the time at which that Grim Reaper is supposed to kill X. Meaning no Grim Reaper would kill X because there will always be a Grim Reaper scheduled to kill X before their time comes.
The modified version of the paradox:
There are still an infinite number of Grim Reapers, but this time instead of killing anyone, they are assigned to a year and are tasked to pass along a note to the next Grim Reaper. Grim Reaper 1 is assigned to 1 B.C. Grim Reaper 2 at 2 B.C. and so on. This is also assuming that the past is indeed infinite. Each Grim Reaper receives a piece of paper on the first day of every year from his predecessor and hands it to his successor on the last day of the year he is assigned. If the paper is blank when received, he will write the number of the year he assigned on the piece of paper and pass it on. If the paper already has a piece of paper on it, he will just pass it along without writing anything on it. The paradox is, there must be a number on the piece of paper by the time it reaches the year 1 A.D. But there is no number that can be on that paper because the past would be infinite and no Grim Reaper would ever get a note without a number and there would be no Grim Reaper that would write down their number.
This leads to the argument that:
1. If there could be an infinite regress of causes, then the scenarios provided above would be possible.
2. But these scenarios are impossible.
3. So, there could not be an infinite regress of causes.
1. Correct.
2. How to respond to Hume? Try this: "You're right." Or try this: "This is purely a matter of faith. Both are possible, and neither can be proven or disproved." Or try this: "Hume, you're wrong," and give no reasons why you think so.
My advice and opinion: Take no notice of @Bartricks, or of his insults to you or to intelligence. Best is not to feed him. He has proven he is illogical, and can't be reasoned with.
Here's a fun thought:
A. The universe requires time for its existence
B. Existence requires time for its own existence
C. Time is eternity
D. Eternity is time
The universe might exist supernaturally, beyond any sense of causation (or time).
This is the other meaning of 'eternal', as timeless and causeless, with no definition/information being able to go into it.
Why the heck do we exist here on Earth?
What mysterious origin gave birth?
What purpose the madness amid the mirth?
Why the heck would a Person be the first?
The invisibility disorder spreads;
“Might be’s” and “maybe’s” clog the fora threads,
Naturally, from meaning’s search in heads,
Ever trying to raise ‘God’ from the dead.
God’s not an ‘answer’ but begs the question,
(fill in the rest?)
Yo PoeticU, where you been brother, ha !
I was actually thinking about you when I delved into the thought or premise of eternity.
Metaphysical theories,
have perplexed man throughout the ages
Its existence like a season,
Its purpose discovered turning pages
Some say God's the answer
Many question why
Patterns exist in the universe
Through time, by and by
I was/am a poem in stone in my parentheses as a tube-worm in the slab of timeless eternity, traversing from a fetus to a corpse through the 4D Block of God's Static Realm that simply is.
LOL, that's deep dude ha. Ok one more:
Fourth dimension is fine
5th dimension better
Truth is not static
But dynamic states through time
As you were.
A changing 'God' changing/creating events in time, as a presentist 'God', is not at all preferred by deep believers over a timeless eternalist 'God'. But what the bleep do they know?
Hahaha. Yes, they/we need to get with the times.
When I said supernatural, I meant beyond the laws of nature. My Metaphysical theory relates to a Dipolar God. You know me, I do not like to dichotomize things lol. (Thanks Maslow!).
For example, a Dipolar God (see process theology Whitehead and Hartshorne) incorporates two contradictory concepts of a logically timeless, necessary Being, in a world of contingency/randomness/cause and effect. Kind of like how timeless mathematical truths demonstrate/describe our physically-dependent universe and existence.
"Dipolar theism, according to Charles Hartshorne, understands God as both absolute and relative, abstract and concrete, eternal and temporal, necessary and contingent, infinite and finite (DR). The being of God does not exclude but rather includes the being of the world" .
We are 'God' stuff or 'God' thoughts!
In other news,
‘God’ changed His mind, so it would work better,
From err of His deluge wet and wetter,
Ne’er to kill again by water His kin,
Plus gave Redemption from Original Sin.
versus
‘God’ is unchanging, as ever Perfect,
Knowing and Being all with no defect,
As in all at once and everywhere,
His Self mirrored in us as a Reflect.
but either way or dipolar both,
Reflections of ‘God’ we would have to be,
As the very thoughts imagined in He—
Naught else could exist independently;
This One Effect runs continuously.
"This One Effect runs continuously. "
Conservation Energy- energy is neither created or destroyed:
By conservation of energy
Energy is not lost
Einstein's relativity
Extends infinity
I’m the All and the One, present-Omni,
For I’m eternal and can neither be
Created nor destroyed, having not a cause,
As the Ground of All—I am Energy.
…..NICE!!!!
Ok, our work is done here LOL
The fat lady didn't sing yet.
But really how it turned out…
Myth-Takes of Unconditional Love
And the freedom to be from the Above
And Goodness didn't fill human natura—
Our follies broadcast His soap opera.