If the critic seeks to deny premise #1, this would be an absurdity, since it would mean the universe is eternally self existent, which is refuted by science, including such principles as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and the expansion of the universe. I might be talking about a fluffy pink stole made of ostrich feathers. Thomas Aquinas, a Dominican friar, presented a version of a cosmological argument known as a contingency argument. For those who came in late, the argument from contingency attempts to establish the necessity of a god given the idea that the universe is contingent on a god, that is, that the universe couldn’t exist without one. As noted earlier, all evidence for premise 1 consists of material causes. Your email address will not be published. If this chain of borrowing never reaches a beginning with someone who possesses the book, then no one can possess the book. And your whole contingency argument … To quote Bertrand Russell, the universe is “just there, and that’s all.” Stephen Hawking went on to echo this point in the 1980s, agreeing with Russell that the universe “just is.” I shall show in this paper that this refutation, while it is frequently taken to be valid,' is in fact fallacious. Reichenbach’s argument can therefore be rephrased as follows: No entity within the cosmos can cause itself or be uncaused. They were sometimes called the Hounds of the Lord. The most common arg… Definition 2 emphasizes the inevitability of the entity given the presence of its cause. Wherever there are two possibilities, something must determine which of those … Aquinas observed that, in nature, there were things with contingent existences. Reichenbach has simply found an alternative way to express the principle of sufficient reason, which, as explained earlier, fails by committing an extrapolation error. 'Necessarily, God exists in every possible world.' All the word contingent signifies is our ignorance. In other words, if we trace back through all the causes within the material realm, and if we encounter the very first material cause, which we can call M, then if we find the cause of M, that cause must be immaterial. The cosmological argument for the existence of God is the proof from the contingency of the world (a contingentia mundi). What I mean is the argument for contingency can only tell us that there exists what it takes for anything to exist, and that thing is God, but it doesn’t tell us whether that God is the God of Christianity or Judaism or Islam, for example. The apparent tension between these two definitions of contingency is resolved by recognizing definition 1 as speaking in epistemic rather than ontological terms. No, I’m not. You would have to admit that his nature COULD have been otherwise. Friday, 11 October 2013 Argument from Time and Contingency - Refuted Is Kalam Self Refuting? Craig smuggles in a portrait of Divinity by using the heavily freighted term God.[6]+. For example, suppose I said to you, “Yesterday I saw a huge boa and took a fancy to it. The most heavily debated aspects of Leibniz’s contingency argument are premises 1 … It is the belief that "everything happens for a reason", that there is actually sufficient (and, indeed, good!) As impressive as that may sound to laypersons, philosophers recognize this as a trite statement. Our ignorance in this regard does not justify our concluding that B must, might, or couldn’t happen. The argument from contingency is, ironically enough, sort of like an argument—I mean the structure of an argument. The posts here describe conversations with Apologists & what I regard as their fallacious arguments. Write down the necessary concomitance of matter and change regarding the argument of contingency along with its refutation. [3] Bruce Reichenbach, The Cosmological Argument: A Reassessment, Charles Thomas, Springfield,1972, p. 102. www.plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument, [4] Peter Kreeft, “Rationality of Belief in God”, 12/25/10, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yK_71C3C-30. I shall then offer an explanation as to why Kant thought he needed a refutation such as this at all. Let’s get real. This is a strength with the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument (also known as The Argument From … The conclusion of his argument (statement 5) is that immaterial causation (God) exists. Amy: “No. Today I bought a boa.”. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is … An immaterial cause might be transient or impermanent. Write down the argument of contingency in the words of the late ‘Allāmah al-Ṭabāṭabā’ī. false. . Denzel Washington's Life Advice Will Leave You SPEECHLESS |LISTEN THIS EVERYDAY AND CHANGE YOUR LIFE - Duration: 10:18. Grow Successful Recommended for you As far as we know, there are no immaterial entities. The only adequate explanation of the existence of the contingent universe, the argument from contingency suggests, is that there exists a necessary being on which its existence it rests. Although in Western philosophy the earliest formulation of a versionof the cosmological argument is found in Plato’s Laws,893–96, the classical argument is firmly rooted inAristotle’s Physics (VIII, 4–6) andMetaphysics (XII, 1–6). If there’s a chain of causation from A to Z, then Z is inevitable if any preceding entity in the causal chain is inevitable. There are a lot of good arguments against atheism (like the argument from contingency).There are also some good ones which unfortunately have been used incorrectly so many times that they have been misidentified as bad ones (like Pascal’s Wager).Even more unfortunately, there are also some genuinely bad ones (like the argument from the banana), and some of these are quite popular. It means that something is the case but it doesn’t have to be the case. I’m thinking about getting a tattoo that says that. Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God (from 2 and 4). The hypothesis that this particular universe exists by the necessity of its own nature has also been refuted. Something must have triggered his decision if it was contingent.”, Bob: “Well, there was no envi­ronment to trigger him, since he hadn’t created anything yet. Thomas Aquinas, a Dominican friar, presented a version of a cosmological argument known as a contingency argument. As I see it, the argument from contingency simple says that something had to, necessarily, exist in order for all that now exists to exist. This premise may be true. The narrow range of the Goldilocks Zone, and shortage of planets comparable to Earth, is a common theme in modern creationism, in both its young Earth and old Earth variations. Whatever credibility premise 1 has is owed strictly to our experience of material causes. They engage with the public to spread Catholicism. Yet Craig commits himself to a far more extravagant conjecture and thereby makes a far more egregious mistake by saying that premise 1 supports the speculation that the cosmos has an immaterial cause. In contrast, Craig’s conclusion (immaterial causation exists) is directly encompassed by the term “efficient cause.” Premise 1 flat-out stipulates his conclusion. Given that all evidence supporting premise 1 consists of material causes, we might be tempted to conclude that, no matter how far back we look in the chain of causation, we will always find another material cause. Debunks contingency argument presented by William Lane Craig in debate with Lawrence Krauss. Extrapolating outside the relevant domain is an error well-understood by statisticians studying phenomena within the natural realm. Imagine a believer (Bob) and atheist (Amy) discussing the contingency argument. Right? In recent times, Dr. William Lane Craig has refined it to make it the cornerstone of his argument for the existence of the god of Christianity. As you’d expect, people unschooled in physics are more apt to find Kreeft’s book-borrower analogy persuasive. . 1. It may sound as though “efficient” cause is simply another name for “material” cause. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God (a necessary being). The most common form is the argument from biological design, paradigmatically presented by William Paley in his Watchmaker Argument. It breaks his argument. The Modal Cosmological Argument, also known as the Argument from Contingency, suggests that because the universe might not have existed (i.e. Required fields are marked *. Copyright © 2020 Religion Refuted. Premise 1’s being about efficient causes raises problems for Craig’s argument. Craig is pulling a fast one. Premise 4 commits this blunder in the worst imaginable way by assuming that we can extrapolate from premise 1 to draw conclusions beyond the natural realm. [2] Aquinas does not seem prima facie to be speaking about temporal causal chains, but rather about a dubious ontological hierarchy of efficient causes. Pope Gregory IX authorized the Dominicans to carry out the Inquisition. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1 and 3). So now you believe in God, right?”, Amy: “Not so fast! The only way out of this conclusion is for you to abandon your assertion that God’s nature is necessary. Required fields are marked *. It couldn’t have been any other way.”, Amy: “Why not? The argument from contingency cannot be repudiated by some scientific finding in the future. For those among us who would hope that God’s defenders would not deliberately employ intellectual sleight-of-hand, this is a sad spectacle. Using definition 1, to say B is contingent is to say that we couldn’t predict with confidence the identity or existence of its causal antecedents. Since I found this abundance of material causes, there must be an immaterial cause!”, Craig, after relying solely on material causes to establish premise 1, suddenly switches to immaterial causes in premise 2, without alerting his audience that he’s made this switch. [1] A friar dresses in a cloak, much like a monk, but friars don’t stay tucked away in monasteries. Craig defends himself from the charge of circular reasoning by protesting that all deductive arguments are circular, “In a deductive argument, the conclusion is implicit in the premises.”[9] Craig’s contention that all deductive arguments are circular is false. He chose to create the uni­verse.”, Amy: “Okay, so God, a necessary being, chose to create the universe, which is contingent?”, Bob: “Pre­cisely. it is contingent, as opposed to necessary), we then need some explanation of why it does exist. it is contingent, as opposed to necessary), we then need some explanation of why it does exist. To commit oneself to this conjecture would be a mistake. I've been thinking more and more about the Cosmological Argument lately and I noticed there was a recent thread on it in this forum. That tells us nothing of theological significance. As the philosopher Willard Van Orman Quine observed, physical necessity and contingency are empty terms; there is only what is. Explain the premises of the argument of contingency. The acorn might have been eaten by a squirrel. All Craig is doing here is defining the material realm to include all material causes. [1]+ Everything around us—every cloud, every puppy, every puppy poop—is contingent, said Aquinas, meaning that it didn’t have to exist; some cause made it exist. Therefore, some necessary cause (God) made it exist.[2]+. In other words, B is an inevitable consequence of A. Your email address will not be published. In 1252, Pope Innocent IV authorized them to torture dissenters. There are a lot of good arguments against atheism (like the argument from contingency).There are also some good ones which unfortunately have been used incorrectly so many times that they have been misidentified as bad ones (like Pascal’s Wager).Even more unfortunately, there are also some genuinely bad ones (like the argument … He has free will. Craig’s argument not only exploits deceptive wordplay, but it also incorporates fallacious logic. The argument’s conclusion is therefore contained in one of its premises. The Modal Cosmological Argument, also known as the Argument from Contingency, suggests that because the universe might not have existed (i.e. Islamic philosophy enriches thetradition, developing two types of arguments. There must have been something that started this whole causal sequence. One might say, for instance, that a child’s guardian angel was the efficient cause of the child’s stepping onto the sidewalk just in time to avoid a speeding car. My writing differs from Aquinas’s writing not only in volume, but also in tone. Notice that the weakness of this argument would be less apparent if I strike all references to efficient boas, snakes, and stoles and use only the word boas, by which I still mean efficient boas: We have seen boas within the park; therefore, boas exist outside the park. You said that God has free will and that his deci­sion to create the universe was therefore contingent.”, Amy: “What led to God’s decision to create the universe? Deriving the conclusion requires a conjunction of premises, as opposed to a direct reading of one premise. Craig is mired in a catch-22 predicament. Equivocating is a major no-no in philosophical circles. This argument has been refuted by the Theory of … [1] + Everything around us—every cloud, every puppy, every puppy poop—is contingent, said Aquinas, meaning that it didn’t have to exist; some … Don't be caught refuting old arguments - Robert E. Maydole's Temporal Contingency argument for God. It seems that Reichenbach is using the term contingent ontologically, per definition 2, asserting that each entity has a cause outside itself. Tuesday, 11 March 2014 The Argument from Contingency - Refuted The argument from contingency is easily refuted when you remember Plantinga's ontological argument. The term efficient cause is broad enough to encompass both material and immaterial causes. You may recognize this claim (that everything must have a cause) as an implicit appeal to the principle of sufficient reason, debunked in Chapter 1 of Religion Refuted. To say that something is contingent means that it is not necessary. The Argument from Contingency The Argument from Contingency is one of the strongest arguments for the existence of God. For perspective, 10 million words is equivalent to over 60 books the size of the one you’re reading now. [4] He asks us to imagine someone who borrows a book from someone who borrows a book, and so on backward in time. I would like … And another! It had to be some­thing within his mind.”, Amy: “There was something about the nature of God’s mind that caused his decision?”, Bob: “Right. And another! This string of contingent events can’t trace out endlessly. For more information, please visit www.religionrefuted.com. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. It is a form of argument from universal causation. On what grounds is thisassumption made? The Ontological Argument. The suggestion that “something must exist but nothing exists necessarily” has been disproven in this specific blog. Everything must have an explanation - that some fact holds means that it holds because of its own nature (necessarily) or because it was brought about by some external cause (it is contingent on that cause). [7] A formal fallacy is an error in the logic of an argument that is visible in the form of the argument: how the argument’s premises and conclusion are laid out. Don't be caught refuting old arguments - Robert E. Maydole's Temporal Contingency argument for God. [9]If they had evidence for God, they wouldn't need the Cosmological Argument at all. We, in theory, trace particles from the present backward, ultimately to the plasma of the early universe and to the quantum fluctuation. But to refute this argument, as you claim to do, requires you to show that God cannot possibly be exemplified, i.e., he contains a logical contradiction. Contingency Argument. His disjunctive syllogism is a hand-waving distraction from this reality. The argument also mentions "all beings and things in time and space", as part of premise #2. Once we understand that premise 1 refers to efficient causes, it’s obvious that premise 1 presupposes immaterial causation. And your whole contingency argument collapses.”, Bob: “Jesus loves you, Amy, but he’s probably getting pretty fed up with you right about now.”, Your email address will not be published. Using the term “efficient boa,” I could argue as follows: We have seen efficient boas (by which I mean snakes) within the park; therefore, an efficient boa (by which I mean a stole) exists outside the park. That’s sheer conjecture. [1] Let's analyze the argument by premise: Premise 1: Every temporally contingent being possibly fails to exist at some time. Sometimes it’s called petitio principii or circular reasoning. You would probably think I was being purposely deceitful. You’re saying a necessary God had to create the universe?”, Bob: “Yes, except that God technically didn’t HAVE to create the universe. [3] What does it mean, however, to say something is contingent? 2, pp. Yet premise 4 presumes that the natural realm itself must (via premise 1) have an explanation as well. Whichever I’m talking about, I should try to be clear. The classical Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God consistsof six statements: This first premise has two major flaws: 1) It assumes that things can begin to exist. In other words, definition 1 concerns what we know, whereas definition 2 deals with objects out in the real world. Using definition 2, when we say that B is contingent on A, we mean that A causes B. [8] If we accept that defense, and I do, then Craig isn’t guilty of equivocating. Aquinas's argument from contingency allows for the possibility of a Universe that has no beginning in time. The posts here describe conversations with Apologists & what I regard as their fallacious arguments. The first argument that I would like to consider with you is the argument from contingency. The universe was contingent on God’s decision to create the universe. Tuesday, 11 March 2014 The Argument from Contingency - Refuted Evidence for the external causes mentioned in premise 1 is drawn from our success in finding explanations within the natural realm, material explanations translatable into the language of physics. But the conclusion is, in Craig’s words “All the more obvious on an A-theory than on a B-theory”. This is a pretty long post, but I think it's no more than such an important subject deserves. Kreeft’s analogy surreptitiously transfigures this mystery about why anything exists into a presumption that there had to be a first cause. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause). Granted, it’s more in keeping with our experience than any alternative conjecture, but it’s still conjecture. Yet these efficient causes could be implemented, as far as we know, only by force carrier particles that cannot exceed the speed of light and would therefore manifest as a temporal causal chain. That something must not have been a contingent thing, but a necessary thing. The rule against equivocation prohibits speakers from tricking listeners by surreptitiously switching between alternate meanings of a word that has multiple meanings. The philosopher Walter Sinnott-Armstrong puts it this way: “…to avoid begging the question, one’s reason to believe the premise must be independent of both (a) one’s belief in the conclusion and also (b) one’s reason to believe the conclusion.”[10]. Sure, common-day objects such as tables and chairs "begin to exist" inthe sense that the arrangement of matter that people agree are "tables" and"chairs" begin to "exist" when someone arranges … I for one do not know if there is a logical incoherency in God or not, and so I withhold judgment. This is an informal fallacy known as begging the question. To say that an entity is contingent can be interpreted to mean (1) the entity is physically possible but not necessary, or (2) the entity is causally dependent on something outside itself. The argument against the existence of God offered by this gentleman is not a valid one. Craig engages in precisely this sort of wordplay. The Teleological Argument attempts to show that certain features of the world indicate that it is the fruit of intentional Divine design.. God’s decision to create the universe was contingent on God’s mental functioning, which was contingent on God’s nature, which could be no other way than the way it is. It’s possible that the material realm has no cause, that material causes stretch back infinitely or to the beginning. Reply Delete Kant's refutation of the ontological argument-which states that from the concept of a being containing every perfection it is possible to infer its existence-is well known: "In whatever manner the understanding may have arrived at a concept, the existence of its object is never, by any process of … True, but so is God. That seems incontrovertible. the universe has a cause. My argument argues that the Argument from Contingency is sound. > Q: How can we debunk the argument from contingency for the existence of God? Leibniz’s Argument from Contingency. I might be talking about a snake. Clearly this is a claim that God exists in *something*, whatever that something may be, and that the something that God exists in is not identical with … 4. All Rights Reserved. It seems to me that if there are no degrees of freedom in God’s nature, then everything down the causal stream is strictly determined. The efficient cause of the painter’s sunburn was a defect in her sunscreen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtfVds8Kn4s. Or a drought might have killed off the sapling.”, Bob: “And Earth itself is contingent, right?”, Bob: “But we can’t trace backwards forever, always saying that everything is contingent. The implication is that at least one entity in the cosmos must have a cause outside the cosmos. Rewording the argument like this doesn’t make it sound, just cunning. [10] “Begging the Question,” Australian Journal of Philosophy, volume 77, no. (As an aside, if we replace the term A with God, we see that if God is inevitable, then everything else further down the causal chain must also be inevitable.). This is probably the most important passage in … Therefore it cannot count as the cause of the material realm. 174-191; June 1999. That is the only conclusion maximally congruent with our experience. It is the opposite of necessity. Argument from contingency. The formal argument comes in many forms, so here for instance is the one William Lane Craig uses in his book … To the pragmatic atheistmany of these arguments remain unpersuasive, ranging from defining something into existence, to at best arguing … Your email address will not be published. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. But if you say God’s nature is contingent on something else, then God is a contingent entity. It is impossible for science to show that universe can exist in every possible world, because possible worlds are not actual. Leibniz wrote about many subjects in natural theology and philosophy of religion, including the problem of evil, the cosmological argument… It is based on a false premise. Craig, however, doesn’t want to talk only about material causes. It’s logical legerdemain. Wherever there are two possibilities, something must determine which of those possibilities is realized. An informal fallacy, in contrast, can’t be detected by examining the structure of the argument. Kreeft’s scenario makes sense when speaking of books, but it falls apart when he implies that “existence” is borrowed from past existences, as though existence were a commodity. 2. 3. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz was a German mathematician, scientist and philosopher who made important contributions in logic, metaphysics, physics and mathematics. Debunks contingency argument presented by William Lane Craig in debate with Lawrence Krauss. We all know that God is taken by most people in Craig’s audience to be a conscious being, whereas “immaterial cause,” to the extent that it has meaning, doesn’t imply any such thing. Amy: “Why not? Still, using a word in a context where the audience likely won’t recognize this switching back and forth between meanings is a poor practice. Sometimes contingency is used in the sense of “it … I. The debate starts with a lengthy discussion of the Cosmological Argument.Copleston presents a version of the argument based on contingency, which is based on Aquinas' 'Third Way' and Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason.Russell responds by questioning whether necessary existence (aseity) is a … The posts here describe conversations with Apologists & what I regard as their fallacious arguments. The argument against the existence of God offered by this gentleman is not a valid one. We can’t infer immaterial causes from having observed only material causes. Craig’s crafty (though futile) effort to slither a course between these two fallacies demonstrates that he is mindful of his predicament. Let me emphasize that these explanations, these physical causes, are invariably found within the natural realm. / Leibniz’s Contingency Argument / Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause). Craig himself, in defense of premise 1, provides examples only of material causes, never of immaterial causes. If we trace the train of existence backward (“this was caused to exist by that, which was caused to exist by that, and so forth”), we must eventually terminate with an original source of existence. The Argument from Contingency Copleston sets out his argument for the existence of God - an argument from contingency that is a type of Cosmological Argument. But suppose an argument has three premises, each of which we judge to be true with 51 percent confidence—more probably true than false. Peter Kreeft presents the contingency argument by way of a homey analogy. 4. His statement that a deductive conclusion is “implicit in the premises” is accurate but irrelevant. That’s one of the primary responses to Leibniz’s Contingency Argument: the universe is a brute fact — it just is. That’s not always the case. Friday, 11 October 2013 Argument from Time and Contingency - Refuted We might say, for instance, that the efficient cause of a painting is the painter. The heart of the argument is the denial of true contingency. In support of premise 2, Craig points out that if a cause is a material cause then it is, itself, part of the material realm. The Magazine Basic Theme by bavotasan.com. The flock of friars called Dominicans were founded by the Spanish priest Saint Dominic de Guzman in France to preach against heresy. Definition 1 emphasizes our uncertainty about whether the contingent entity will exist: the entity’s existence is conditional. The Magazine Basic Theme by bavotasan.com. The only way out of this conclusion is for you to abandon your assertion that God’s nature is necessary. All Rights Reserved. [Variation of the Principle of Sufficient Reason.] A lot of people conflate the argument from contingency with the so-called “cosmological” argument (a.k.a. [8] William Lane Craig, “Objections So Bad I Couldn’t Have Made Them Up (Worst Objections to Kalām Cosmological Argument)”, posted 2/2/2012. Dr. Craig told me that the Kalam Argument is weakened in its persuasive force on a b-theory, but it isn’t refuted. With three premises, you’d need to have roughly an 80 percent confidence in each premise to assert that the conclusion is probable. This supporting argument takes a form philosophers label as a disjunctive syllogism. To the pragmatic atheistmany of these arguments remain unpersuasive, ranging from defining something into existence, to at best arguing for some form of … The posts here describe conversations with Apologists & what I regard as their fallacious arguments. Premise 2 says, “If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.” Note that Craig has substituted the term “God” for “immaterial cause.” When challenged on the legitimacy of this substitution, Craig shrugs that these two terms are equivalent. In a valid deductive argument, the conclusion is derived by combining the logic of the various premises. So, Craig’s argument to support premise 2 rings hollow. I have chosen the word legerdemain, drawing a comparison of Craig’s argument to a magician’s trick, because his argument, like many magicians’ tricks, incorporates clever distraction. For more information, please visit www.religionrefuted.com. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. Returning to the boa example, suppose you complained that I misled you about whether I was talking about a snake or stole. Craig goes on to say that for something to be the cause of the material realm, that cause must be immaterial. What we call today the Kalam Cosmological Argument, was first made by Aristotle and then by Islamic scholars in the 9th century. 3. We can call that necessary thing God.”, Amy: “Wait. Even the famous French atheist, Denis Diderot, gushingly praised Leibniz as on par with Plato. Arabic philosophers(falasifa), such as Ibn Sina (c. 980–1037), developedthe argument fro… Only one kind of cause is known: physical cause. [6] Though Craig claims (falsely, I would argue) that he has arguments that prove the immaterial cause is a personal god, substituting “God” for “immaterial” still renders the form of his argument invalid. Craig’s approach, if adopted by a door-to-door salesman, would be classified by the legal profession as a bait and switch scam. Craig demonstrates with this argument that if the material realm has a cause, it must be immaterial. From the The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, a newer generation of philosophical arguments have been released to apologists. Otherwise, all deductive arguments would be fallacious. Physicists tell us that entities are made of particles that assemble and disassemble, migrating from one entity to another. Most people probably never notice Craig’s guileful shift from material to immaterial causes. reason why this or that has happene… But what if I snickered and told you that I meant snake in the first sentence and stole in the second? From the The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, a newer generation of philosophical arguments have been released to apologists. It makes no sense to cry out, “Ooh, I found a material cause! The analogy’s exploitation of scientific illiteracy exemplifies a much broader principle manifest throughout apologetics: Every argument for the supernatural realm is rooted in ignorance of the natural realm.