Essay Philosophy Midterm
Thesis Statement for Philosophy Midterm
We can tell that there is a physical cosmos if we take a look around us. Now, everything that exists has a cause—that is, something else caused it to exist. However, there can’t be an endless number of prior causes, each of which is the result of a previous cause, because it would be impossible. In order for this to be true, there must have been an initial, uncaused cause (God).”
The obvious flaw in the preceding argument is that it is predicated on the false assumption that an infinite regress of causes is unlikely. Thus, the notion that an infinite chain of prior causes cannot exist and that there is a first uncaused cause is supported by empirical evidence. However, there is nothing in the reasoning itself that supports the claim that such an endless causal series is unavoidably impossible. As the Islamic philosopher Al-Ghazali put it, “if we allow a cause to have its own cause, and the cause of the cause to have yet another cause, and so on ad infinitum,” we “it not oblige you to claim that an infinite regress of causes is impossible.” (90-91) A claim regarding why an endless causal chain is untenable must be made in order for the argument to be effective. However, there is nothing in the argument that supports this claim; rather, it just implies that such an infinite causal chain is unsustainable and therefore unworkable. Furthermore, the argument that the universe does not have a creator, for example, can be supported with precision by the claim that there is an infinite chain of causes in the universe. From this perspective, the argument falls short of attacking the core foundation of the arguments against an uncaused cause such as God: that there is an infinite chain of causes and, as a result, that there is no need for a solitary uncaused cause to explain everything.
The argument, on the other hand, can be protected from falling prey to the erroneous dependence on the assumed fallacy of an infinite causal chain by transforming it into a Kalam style argument. Portion of the first part of the argument could be preserved:
1) “If we take a glance around us, we will notice that there is a physical universe.” Now, everything that exists has a cause – that is, everything was caused by something else.”
Consequently, the alteration would occur at this specific place and may be expressed as follows:
2) “Insofar as everything that exists has a cause, the physical cosmos, as anything that exists, itself has a cause,” says the philosopher David Hume.
In this case, it would be appropriate to keep the concluding point of the argument:
“Therefore, there must have been a first, uncaused cause (God),” says the philosopher.
Logically, this Kalam-style argument is more robust since it considers the entire cosmos to be something that exists, and because everything that exists has a cause, it follows that the universe has a cause as well. That what produces the universe cannot, by definition, be something that is a part of the cosmos, since the opposite is true. If this were the case, we would be in violation of our second premise, which we would deny. However, if we accept the second premise, we are arguing that the universe is likewise something that is caused, but we are looking for a reason for the universe that is not contained inside the cosmos itself. Due to the fact that everything in the cosmos, including the universe itself, is caused, this results in a cause that is uncaused, often known as a “uncaused cause.” Because God is defined as eternally existing and as the uncaused cause of the cosmos, it is this form of “uncaused cause,” which has always existed and has never been brought into existence, that satisfies an eternally existing and uncaused cause definition.
The initial premise of this Kalam-style argument is one of its most compelling features. The notion that things that exist have a cause would appear to be intuitively and factually justifiable. The sun, the earth, and the human being are all generated by a variety of physical processes, as is the sun. They are not created out of nothing, but are rather the result of the actions of other things. Furthermore, in this similar vein, the second premise looks to be well-supported. It stands to reason that the universe as a whole should be included in the same causal sequence as any other physical entity, or rather any group of physical objects, such as stars and suns. It is possible to investigate the origins of the universe as a physical entity, or better still as a collection of physical entities, in the same way that any single physical entity, such as the planet Earth, can be investigated in terms of what produced it.
It follows from this that the universe must have been caused by something uncaused, outside of the cosmos, and therefore not reducible to the physical reality of the universe, in order for the universe to have come into being. While this is consistent with the previous points, it establishes a distinction between the cosmos as a collection of physically existent things and the God who transcends the universe and is the source of the universe’s existence by separating the universe from God. However, there are a couple of potential issues or flaws with this approach. Is it inevitable that we will arrive to a monotheistic God as a result of this argument? Could we not hypothesize that the outside of the universe that produces the universe is also a multiplication of itself? In this regard, Michael Martin, for example, makes the following argument: (1990, 103) Additionally, if this argument is correct, can we honestly regard this outer causal force to be akin to God in the way that we know him from the monotheistic religious traditions? Couldn’t this mysterious cause outside of the universe be something else entirely, a mysterious X that would, according to the argument, have some properties similar to what we understand by God, but would be something entirely different? Couldn’t this mysterious cause outside of the universe be something entirely different? Even if this mystery X, in particular, would appear to be uncaused and to exist outside of the cosmos, does this inevitably imply that this mysterious X is God? So, does this reasoning by itself justify very particular doctrines of the monotheistic faith, such as the Messiah and Son of God Jesus Christ in Islam or the Messiah and Son of God Jesus Christ in Christianity?
The Kalam argument, when considered in light of these arguments, appears to be a very powerful claim that the cosmos had to be created by something outside of the world, a cause that was uncaused, and thus gets very near to monotheistic conceptions of the formation of the universe. Specifically, it appears that the argument is valuable in that it assists in the establishment of a cause of the universe that is not a component of the universe itself.
