The following argument is constructed for thinking atheists who like to use their brains.
1) Do you exist?
2) If you say Yes, then you must agree that you have parents.
3) If you say Yes, then you must agree your parents have parents.
4) If you say Yes, then you must agree that your parent's parents had parents.
5) You must also also agree that this cannot continue on for infinity, else you wouldn't exist. Another way to say highlight the absurdity is " For your existence to occur, there were infinite number of events before it." And this is an impossibility because infinity does not end.
6)Now you might say, that you don't entertain infinite regress, then you must agree the series of events leading upto your existence were Limited and not infinite.
7) If you agree they were limited, then what brought the first event into existence? You might say, the first event occured causelessly. This Premise could be interpreted by an atheist as invoking "God of gaps argument". However this is not the case. What i am trying to highlight is that the occurance of first event can be 1) due to a cause or 2) without a cause (causelessly).
8) It is impossible that the first event occured causelessly. Why?
When the first event came into existence, the following can be said regarding its existence.
a) it was impossible: This is a contradiction, else it wouldn't have begun to exist.
b) it was necessary/Eternal: This again is a contradiction, else it would have been existent since eternity past, and moments ago we both agreed that the event began to exist or (according to you) occured causelessly.
c)It was possible: Since the existence of such an event was niether necessary, nor impossible, it must be possible in existence. What does possible in existence entail? There was nothing in its nature that required existence (else it would have been necessary) neither its nature required non-existence (else it would have been impossible). So the existence and non-existence are equal with respect to the very nature of the event i.e intrinsic to itself. Equal in what sense? None is preponderant over the other.
9) Now when such an event begins to exist from prior non-existence, it has to be on account of some external cause preferring its existence over non-existence. You can't say the event occured causelessly because that would lead to a contradiction. Please note we agreed that such an event was a possibility and there was nothing in its nature that required existence (else it would be necessary/eternal) and niether it required non-existence (else it would be impossible). Both existence and non-existence were equal. Now when you claim that the first event occured causlessly, you are making a contradiction because how can something be such that both its existence and non-existence are equal and at the same time be such that its existence is preponderant above its non-existence? (This absurdity is known as Preponerance without a preferror).
10) What brought the first event into existence, cannot be said to be like the event. Else it would need to be brought into existence as well. This means the regress will continue and there are no chances for you to ever begin to exist. But you do exist right?
11) What brought the first event into existence, must be itself necessary/Eternal (existent since eternity past). This is precisely necessary to terminate the regress. You can't ask the question Who created this Eternal? Because this would lead to a contradiction. Because the definition of what is eternal is something that was always existent or existent since eternity past so asking the question "Who created it?" means how did it came into existence and this is a contradiction.
12) Now you can say this thing that is eternal that brought the first event into existence can be anything such as an eternal matter. Why does it have to be God? Why does it have to be intelligent?
13) We reject the notion that it is eternal matter. Why? Because if it was assumed that it was an eternal matter, you must admit that the first event was brought into existence FROM it, rather than BY it.
a) If it was From it.
This is impossible. Because the matter is said to be eternal. So it is impossible than any change could occur within the matter. Because by definition, any change is essentially a beginning. To claim that the "eternal" matter changed (on account of leading to existence of the first event) then this would necessarily mean that infinity came to end or something that had no beginning (always existent or existent since eternity past) has a beginning and this is a contradiction. How can something be neccessarily existent/ eternal and possible in existence at the same time?
a 2)In an attempt to confuse layman, atheist may come up with an absurdity i.e contingents without a first. He tries to prove that the matter itself is contingent but it is subject to change since eternity. The reason why this is absurd is because if it is claimed that a contingent matter has been subject to changes since eternity then any change by definition would fail to exist because it would require infinite changes in the past to be completed before it and that is absurd. Another way to highlight this absurdity is:
Prearangment in the pre-existing matter caused by Prearrangement in the pre-existing matter caused by Prearrangement in the pre-existing matter (ad infinitum)
b) If it was By it.
This is impossible because an Eternal matter is deemed lifeless, unintelligent by you. How can the first event be brought into existence when you hold the eternal matter to be lifeless and unintelligent?
14) This leaves us to the conclusion that what brought the first event as well as the subsequent events into existence is a Necessarily existent/ Eternal Being. Why the subsequent events as well? (Read premise 10)
1) Do you exist?
2) If you say Yes, then you must agree that you have parents.
3) If you say Yes, then you must agree your parents have parents.
4) If you say Yes, then you must agree that your parent's parents had parents.
5) You must also also agree that this cannot continue on for infinity, else you wouldn't exist. Another way to say highlight the absurdity is " For your existence to occur, there were infinite number of events before it." And this is an impossibility because infinity does not end.
6)Now you might say, that you don't entertain infinite regress, then you must agree the series of events leading upto your existence were Limited and not infinite.
7) If you agree they were limited, then what brought the first event into existence? You might say, the first event occured causelessly. This Premise could be interpreted by an atheist as invoking "God of gaps argument". However this is not the case. What i am trying to highlight is that the occurance of first event can be 1) due to a cause or 2) without a cause (causelessly).
8) It is impossible that the first event occured causelessly. Why?
When the first event came into existence, the following can be said regarding its existence.
a) it was impossible: This is a contradiction, else it wouldn't have begun to exist.
b) it was necessary/Eternal: This again is a contradiction, else it would have been existent since eternity past, and moments ago we both agreed that the event began to exist or (according to you) occured causelessly.
c)It was possible: Since the existence of such an event was niether necessary, nor impossible, it must be possible in existence. What does possible in existence entail? There was nothing in its nature that required existence (else it would have been necessary) neither its nature required non-existence (else it would have been impossible). So the existence and non-existence are equal with respect to the very nature of the event i.e intrinsic to itself. Equal in what sense? None is preponderant over the other.
9) Now when such an event begins to exist from prior non-existence, it has to be on account of some external cause preferring its existence over non-existence. You can't say the event occured causelessly because that would lead to a contradiction. Please note we agreed that such an event was a possibility and there was nothing in its nature that required existence (else it would be necessary/eternal) and niether it required non-existence (else it would be impossible). Both existence and non-existence were equal. Now when you claim that the first event occured causlessly, you are making a contradiction because how can something be such that both its existence and non-existence are equal and at the same time be such that its existence is preponderant above its non-existence? (This absurdity is known as Preponerance without a preferror).
10) What brought the first event into existence, cannot be said to be like the event. Else it would need to be brought into existence as well. This means the regress will continue and there are no chances for you to ever begin to exist. But you do exist right?
11) What brought the first event into existence, must be itself necessary/Eternal (existent since eternity past). This is precisely necessary to terminate the regress. You can't ask the question Who created this Eternal? Because this would lead to a contradiction. Because the definition of what is eternal is something that was always existent or existent since eternity past so asking the question "Who created it?" means how did it came into existence and this is a contradiction.
12) Now you can say this thing that is eternal that brought the first event into existence can be anything such as an eternal matter. Why does it have to be God? Why does it have to be intelligent?
13) We reject the notion that it is eternal matter. Why? Because if it was assumed that it was an eternal matter, you must admit that the first event was brought into existence FROM it, rather than BY it.
a) If it was From it.
This is impossible. Because the matter is said to be eternal. So it is impossible than any change could occur within the matter. Because by definition, any change is essentially a beginning. To claim that the "eternal" matter changed (on account of leading to existence of the first event) then this would necessarily mean that infinity came to end or something that had no beginning (always existent or existent since eternity past) has a beginning and this is a contradiction. How can something be neccessarily existent/ eternal and possible in existence at the same time?
a 2)In an attempt to confuse layman, atheist may come up with an absurdity i.e contingents without a first. He tries to prove that the matter itself is contingent but it is subject to change since eternity. The reason why this is absurd is because if it is claimed that a contingent matter has been subject to changes since eternity then any change by definition would fail to exist because it would require infinite changes in the past to be completed before it and that is absurd. Another way to highlight this absurdity is:
Prearangment in the pre-existing matter caused by Prearrangement in the pre-existing matter caused by Prearrangement in the pre-existing matter (ad infinitum)
b) If it was By it.
This is impossible because an Eternal matter is deemed lifeless, unintelligent by you. How can the first event be brought into existence when you hold the eternal matter to be lifeless and unintelligent?
14) This leaves us to the conclusion that what brought the first event as well as the subsequent events into existence is a Necessarily existent/ Eternal Being. Why the subsequent events as well? (Read premise 10)
Comments
Post a Comment