The cosmological argument

[ArtemisVale]

I was wondering if anybody here had a response to this article

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html

[MrBogosity]

Fail right off the bat:

"1. The argument does NOT rest on the premise that "Everything has a cause."...Here's the funny thing, though.  People who attack this argument never tell you where they got it from.  They never quote anyone defending it.  There's a reason for that.  The reason is that none of the best-known proponents of the cosmological argument in the history of philosophy and theology ever gave this stupid argument.  Not Plato, not Aristotle..."

Ahem:

"CLEINIAS: Clearly the self-moving; for there could be no change in them arising out of any external cause; the change must first take place in themselves.

"ATHENIAN: Then we must say that self-motion being the origin of all motions, and the first which arises among things at rest as well as among things in motion, is the eldest and mightiest principle of change, and that which is changed by another and yet moves other is second."

—Plato, The Laws, Book X

And:

"To suppose, on the other hand, that these things were in being throughout all previous time without there being any motion appears unreasonable on a moment's thought, and still more unreasonable, we shall find, on further consideration. For if we are to say that, while there are on the one hand things that are movable, and on the other hand things that are motive, there is a time when there is a first mover and a first moved, and another time when there is no such thing but only something that is at rest, then this thing that is at rest must previously have been in process of change: for there must have been some cause of its rest, rest being the privation of motion. Therefore, before this first change there will be a previous change....It follows then, that there will be a process of change previous to the first."

"But the first movent causes a motion that is eternal and does cause it during an infinite time. It is clear, therefore, that the first movent is indivisible and is without parts and without magnitude."

—Aristotle, Physics, Book VIII

With fail like that, no need to read any further.

[BogosityForumUser]

Four quick points, Aristotle did say EVERYTHING that exists had a cause (he is Mr. Four Causes, after all).  The reason is that Greek thought for thousands of years did not have a problem with the idea that you could do an infinite number of things in a finite amount of time, infinite regresses, etc.  It was a paradox, true, but that doesn't mean that it was impossible.  Modern mathematics has even less trouble with it.

This is why modern apologetic practice is to use the Kalam version or the sustaining version.  Specifically, this limits the major premise of the argument from "everything that exists has a cause" to "everything THAT BEGAN TO EXIST has a cause."  This has some glaring omissions from that premise that allows them to claim that God can be uncaused but can also be the start of attack because you now have a gap (that God fits in, BTW) for things that exist but never began to exist (i.e. are the type of things that cannot be caused). 

Then he goes to Aquinas, who didn't even believe the kalam worked at all (he was a sustaining version proponent).  Don't believe me, here it is from the article: "In fact, Aquinas rather famously rejected what is now known as the kalām argument.  He did not think that the claim that the universe had a beginning could be established through philosophical arguments.  He thought it could be known only via divine revelation, and thus was not suitable for use in trying to establish God's existence."  Instead he said their needed to be a necessary cause.  But that leaves room for other necessary things as well.

Ultimately, the problem with this article is that the guy doesn't do a good job of describing the different cosmological arguments and switches between them at will.  He also, like most Aquinas students, uses all four types of Aristotelian causes and switches between them when convenient but not indicating that he switched.  Ultimately, this article looks convincing but fails the highlighter test.


I just realized that you guys may not know what the highlighter test is.  Basically, when reading Aristotle or work that traces back to him, like Aquinas or this guy, you should have four highlighters.  Each highlighter represents a different type of cause.  Whenever you get a clear sight of what type of cause is being talked about, you highlight it.  It makes it easier to determine what the unhighlighted discussions about cause are about and to catch when someone has switched.  In Aristotle and other philosophy not designed to trick you, it helps keep it straight as he jumps around sometimes (although most philosophers tell you when they do but it can be subtle).  However, in this kind of apologetic writing, it allows you to better spot when they have changed the game on you to try and score cheap points.