Stefana Szombati/1006788665/Ms.

Samadi

Part 1: Clarifying the Argument

1. Every event must have a cause. (P1)

2. Hence an event A must have as cause some event B, which in turn must have a cause C,

and so on. (C1) – derived from P1

3. But if there is no end to this backward progression of causes, the progression will be

infinite. (P2)

4. In the opinion of those who use this argument, an infinite series of actual events is

unintelligible and absurd. (P3)

5. Hence there must be a first cause, and this first cause is God, the initiator of all change

in the universe. (Does God Exist) (C2) – derived from C1, P2 and P3

Part 2: Clarifying an Objection to an Argument

Philosopher X is objecting to the second premise (P2) proposed in his/her first argument, which

reads as follows:

‘But if there is no end to this backward progression of causes, the progression will be

infinite.’ (P2)

Philosopher X is objective to the claim that there is an infinite series of causation of events.

He/she state that unbeknownst to us, some events or causes in our universe may not have had

a posterior event that caused it to occur. He/she suggest that by claiming to state that a

‘progression is infinite’, we are creating a hypothetical alternative to suggest the events of

preexisting events, hence we are evading the possibility that an event could have been self-

1
caused. This is clearly depicted in Philosopher X’s primary objective statement of; ‘If the

principle is assumed, it is surely incongruous to postulate a first cause as a way of escaping from

the coils of an infinite series’. Philosopher X continues to support his/her above objection by

questioning whether God can be the only self-caused being, and if the world itself could

potentially be self-caused as well. In essence, he/her is being objective to the claim that only

one thing/being can be self-caused. He/her is proposing the notion that there could very well

exist other things/beings that are self-caused. This is apparent in his/her statement as follows:

‘But if God transcending the world can be self-caused, why cannot the world itself be self-

caused?’. His/hers questioning of the second premise causes a ripple effect which in my

perspective leads Philosopher X to object to the final conclusion (C2):

‘Hence there must be a first cause, and this first cause is God, the initiator of all change

in the universe.’ (Does God Exist) (C2) – derived from C1, P2 and P3

Part 3: (A)

I believe that Philosopher X’s objection to his/her initial argument in passage one is valid and

plausible. He/she demonstrates how there could be a flaw in premise two, as not every event

has to have been caused by a prior, as well as stating that there may very well exist

(unbeknownst to us) other beings (other than God) that are self-caused. In my perspective,

Philosopher X raises a plausible objection towards the cosmological argument in its second

premise which states:

‘The series of events exists as caused and not as uncaused (necessary)’

His/hers objection indicates the possibility that a series of events can be uncaused, which

would then make one of the premises in the cosmological argument implausible, leaving the

2
cosmological argument to be unsound. Although Philosopher X does not provide an alternative

philosophical theory backing up his/hers objection, the objection itself provides enough of a

query to raise a question about the validity of the premises of the cosmological argument,

hence entailing whether the cosmological arguments conclusion:

‘There must exist the necessary being that is the cause of all contingent being’,

is indeed both valid and sound.

Part 3: (B)

As Philosopher X him/herself does significantly well in objecting to the second premise, whilst

also objecting to other premises through the objection of the second premise, I believe it to

only be natural to object against the conclusion of Philosopher X’s original argument as a

whole, which follows as:

‘Hence there must be a first cause, and this first cause is God, the initiator of all change

in the universe.’ (Does God Exist) (C2) – derived from C1, P2 and P3

Off the bat, I can object to the claim that ‘God’ is the initiator of all change in the universe. As

Philosopher X demonstrated above by objecting to premise two, there may very well be other

things/beings that are self-caused. By applying this same logic, I could claim to believe that

there are also other things/beings that are the initiator of change in the universe. The downside

to this argument is that it is poorly supported, as in this current moment of time I cannot

provide scientific nor tangible data to prove my objection, yet my objection still stands as we

cannot assume a position to appeal to ignorance, which simply put means that since the idea of

God being the initiator of change in the universe has not yet been disputed or refuted, then it

must be true. Additionally, I could refute the idea that there must always be a first cause. In

3
order to create a plausible argument for this objection, a display of an action that was caused

without a posteriori would be needed. Yet again, as there is yet to be any ‘proof’ of an event

being self-caused, as well as there is yet to be an alternative perspective/theory on the

causation of self-caused events, it would not be considered a plausible argument against

Philosopher X’s original argument, hence my objection wouldn’t succeed in showing the

cosmological argument to be unsuccessful.

Part 3: (C)

In conclusion, from evaluation of Philosopher X’s original argument, we are introduction to the

possibility of the following:

 Events cannot be single occurrences and hence must have posterior events that caused

them (infinite progression of events)

 An infinite series of events without a primary first cause can only be explained through

the existence of a ‘greater’ being, which can only be God

Whilst Philosopher X’s original argument seems on the surface to be unplausible as it can be

characterized as being valid and sound, Philosopher X him/herself provides an objection to

his/her original argument by stating the following:

 There may exist events that have no posterior event causing it

 Why do we claim that God is self-caused if we have no proof of his self-causation?

 If God can truly be self-caused, then what is stopping us from assuming that other

beings/things in our universe aren’t also self-caused?

4
 Why do we believe that God is the initiator of change in the universe, when there

could quite frankly be other self-caused beings that could have brought the world

into existence by its initiation?

From the analysis of both arguments as well as producing objections of my own, we are

now able to re-analyze the cosmological argument and consider its validity and

soundness. In my opinion, after re-evaluation, I can claim that although the cosmological

argument is in part valid, it is not sound. This is primarily because the cosmological

argument states that the initiator of change, cause and contingency rules out all other

beings, hence suggesting between the lines that this being is God, hence the existence

of God as well as the existence of a infinite series of events whose primary initiator was

God. But, as proven through the analysis of Philosopher X’s primary argument and

objective argument, the cosmological argument can be refuted on the basis of there

being multiple initiators as well as there being uncaused events. In conclusion, I believe

that the evaluation of the fore-mentioned arguments, have led me to be able to demur

to the cosmological argument as a whole, with more concrete and plausible objections.