Aquinas, Hume, and the Cosmological Argument

ModernPAS

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?

aletheist

if there can be no infinite regress of causes, then there must be an event that is uncaused. — ModernPAS

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.

Thus, the claim in the second premise the there can be no infinite regress of causes is simply an unsupported assumption. — 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.

Bartricks

↪ModernPAS

I think the argument is correct, except that the conclusion is narrower than it should be. What we can conclude is that every event has a first uncaused cause or causes.

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.

Bartricks

↪aletheist

if there can be no infinite regress of causes, then there must be an event that is uncaused. — ModernPASNo, 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. — aletheist

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'.

Bartricks

↪ModernPAS

What I do not understand is why something cannot be the cause of itself.

Bartricks

“Nothing can be its own first cause, since then it would have to exist prior to itself and this is impossible.” — ModernPAS

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.

aletheist

What we can conclude is that every event has a first uncaused cause or causes. — Bartricks

More accurately, every series of events has a first uncaused cause.

The whole point of the argument is to establish that not all causation can be by events. — Bartricks

Which is exactly what I said; please read more carefully.

What I do not understand is why something cannot be the cause of itself. — Bartricks

↪ModernPAS

already addressed that--"then it would have to exist prior to itself and this is impossible.”

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. — Bartricks

This is not a counterexample, because the indentation is not causing itself.

Bartricks

↪aletheist

No, you said this:

this would imply that every event is caused by another event, which is not what the first premiss asserts — 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!

This is not a counterexample, because the indentation is not causing itself. — 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.

aletheist

↪Bartricks

Here is the actual exchange.

if there can be no infinite regress of causes, then there must be an event that is uncaused. — ModernPAS

No, this would imply that every event is caused by another event, which is not what the first premiss asserts. — 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.

The example shows that one thing can cause another without preceding it. — 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.

Bartricks

↪aletheist

no, you were incorrect. The OP is correct in what they say. There must be an event - so, an occurrence, a happening - that is uncaused.

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.

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. — 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.

aletheist

There must be an event - so, an occurrence, a happening - that is uncaused. — Bartricks

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."

I showed that the assumption that all causation requires a cause that is prior to its effect is false. — 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.

javra

There must be an event - so, an occurrence, a happening - that is uncaused. — Bartricks

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.

Bartricks

↪aletheist

That's just what an event is. Stop digging.

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. — 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.

aletheist

That's just what an event is — Bartricks

Right, the result of a cause is just what an event is. An "uncaused event" is a self-contradiction.

That's counter-intuitive. — Bartricks

Lots of true propositions, especially in philosophy, are counterintuitive.

Finding out that the ball has always been on the cushion does not call that into question. — Bartricks

On the contrary, it entails that nothing caused the indentation, since there was no event of changing its shape.

Bartricks

↪aletheist

Right, the result of a cause is just what an event is. An "uncaused event" is a self-contradiction. — aletheist

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.

Bartricks

↪aletheist

Lots of true propositions, especially in philosophy, are counterintuitive. — aletheist

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.

aletheist

↪Bartricks

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.

Premise 2 of the argument is highly intuitively. — Bartricks

Which argument? The one in the OP? I agree with that premiss, and even offered a supporting argument for it.

Rejecting it becusae it doesn't fit with one's favourite worldview is incompetent. — Bartricks

My worldview has nothing to do with it. If the indentation has always been present, then nothing caused it.

Bartricks

↪aletheist

What are you talking about? The OP's argument doesn't at any point state that there are uncaused events. Where?

Bartricks

↪aletheist

My worldview has nothing to do with it. If the indentation has always been present, then nothing caused it. — aletheist

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.

aletheist

↪Bartricks

Here is what you said that started us down this road.

The OP is correct in what they say. There must be an event - so, an occurrence, a happening - that is uncaused. — 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.

Bartricks

↪aletheist

Ah, that was a mistake on my part, it should have said 'uncaused cause' as the OP's did. But you were addressing the OP, not me. So it is what they said, not what I did, that is relevant. And they said that there must be some events that have an uncaused causer. And they're right. And that's what the argument they presented established.

aletheist

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. — Bartricks

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.

Bartricks

↪aletheist

I think that is simply false. What, right now, is causing the cushion to be indented? Are you seriously saying that the answer to that question is "nothing"?
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?

javra

And they said that there must be some events that have an uncaused causer. — Bartricks

An uncaused cause, not causer. The first doesn't entail a psyche as the second does. Makes for a very significant difference.

aletheist

↪Bartricks

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.

if there can be no infinite regress of causes, then there must be an event that is uncaused. — ModernPAS

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. — aletheist

That is why I politely asked you to read more carefully.

Bartricks

↪javra

Causer, cause. Whatever. Means the same and doesn't "entail a psyche".

Bartricks

↪aletheist

I ask you to read charitably. That was clearly a mistake on the OP's part. But even if you refuse to be generous in your reading, it does not - not - imply that all causation is event causation. Rather, it implies that some causes have no causes at all. Not events, not substances, not anything.

aletheist

What, right now, is causing the cushion to be indented? — Bartricks

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.

I ask you to read charitably. — 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.

javra

Causer, cause. Whatever. Means the same and doesn't "entail a psyche". — Bartricks

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.

Bartricks

↪aletheist

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. — aletheist

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.

Bartricks

↪javra

'Causer' no more implies an agency than 'cause' does. I mean, it is just cause with an 'r' on the end.

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.

Aquinas, Hume, and the Cosmological Argument

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions