The First Cause argument

The First Cause argument

July 17, 2006 article edited on June 9, 2023.

Castle Conwy, Wales

The picture is of a friend and I back in 2001.

The First Cause argument

Introduction

This is not a review of Aquinas’ cosmological argument, but a look at the related idea of first cause, using William Lane Craig’s kalam[1] cosmological argument as a guide.

William Lane Craig

He presents the kalam cosmological argument.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite.
2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive
addition.
2.21 A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
2.22 The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.[2]

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

Randomness

Metaphysical intuition states that something cannot come out of nothing.[3] Craig deduces that in regard to the universe, if there were originally nothing, including no God, the universe could not come into existence. However, with the existence of an eternal God, the creator could have brought about creation and matter ex nhilio (out of nothing).[4]

Victor Gijsbers in contrast states scientifically that many events in nature are random, including quantum[5] processes. He notes that it is difficult to prove cause and effect.[6] For clarity, I wish to provide a scientific definition of randomness. Lawrence Sklar in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy defines randomness within the philosophy of science. He describes the intuitive distinction between a sequence that is random and one that is orderly and how they play a role in the probability theory of dynamic systems.[7] Sklar also writes that there are subjectivist definitions of randomness which focus on the inability of an agent to determine, by knowledge, future occurrence in a sequence, and there are objectivist definitions of randomness which seek to describe it without reference to any agent.[8]

I am not a scientist, but philosophically speaking it seems reasonable to deduce that apparent randomness or disorder could occur within matter that has previously been caused in an orderly way. After a cause brings about the process that produces matter, apparent randomness and disorder could occur. However, it seems questionable and contradictory to state that initial randomness and disorder could lead to complex processes. I can see disorder occurring in material that was previously ordered, but it is much more difficult to deduce that matter in disorder can structure itself in any kind of complex form. 

For example, the human body has the appearance of being structured and ordered, but there can be apparently random events that take place within it, or corruption and disorder that takes place because of disease or injury. In contrast, I would deduce that a disordered mass of human material could never produce any actual person; there would always be a need for a cause and order for an actual human being to exist. Cause and effect seem a reasonable conclusion in regard to the existence of a complex material being, as matter and the universe seemingly require a cause to exist, and the effects can be seen in the development process, which could include certain events taking place which seem apparently random, but likely have some type of cause which may not as of yet been observed. 

A new born baby may have not been scientifically planned in a laboratory, but seemingly it has a genetic code that makes it specifically human so that it would not have likely developed by a random process from disorder. The order and structure of a new born baby assures that it will not be a new born ape, for example. However, within the genetic structure of a new born human being, there may very well be apparently random events that take place, or there may be planned events that are simply beyond complete human scientific comprehension.

Who created God?

An objection arises, who created God? Gijsbers states that even if the first cause argument is valid, then God would have to have a cause as well.[9] However, many theists including myself, would disagree with this observation, because God would be viewed as infinite, and eternal, in contrast to matter, time and space which would be viewed as finite, and created. Peter Kreeft notes that the first cause argument does not use the premise that everything needs a cause, only that everything in motion, everything dependent needs a cause.[10] God would be viewed as infinite, eternal and immutable (unchangeable), and would not need a cause.

I would add that everything finite, needs a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite.
2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of actual infinite by successive addition.
2.21. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite
2.22 The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.

Infinite Regression

An actual infinite cannot exist because of the problem of infinite regression. I would deduce as others have, that if there was an infinite, limitless past, we would never have arrived at the present. Therefore 2.11 is correct, as we cannot have an actual infinite (past), nor can we have an infinite temporal regress as described in 2.12, because that would equal an actual infinite as Craig would put it. 2.13 is therefore reasonable and rather than reality consisting of an infinite past, it consists of a finite past that had a beginning.

Simon Blackburn points out a potential problem with deducing that each event requires a preceding event would mean that the first cause also requires a preceding event. Blackburn correctly states that the preceding natural events must be distinguished from an initial supernatural event to avoid this problem, the supernatural event would need no cause.[11]

With 2.21, Craig notes that one cannot have an actual infinite collection of things by simple addition.[12] This means that a proposed infinite past could not be reached as the formation of an actual infinite would not be reached whether one proceeds to or from infinity.[13] The events described in 2.2 would therefore be finite and not infinite in agreement with 2.23.The Big Bang

Craig writes that scientifically the big bang theory seems to require that the universe began and was created out of nothing.[14] By nothing, it is meant that it was not created by pre-existent matter.
Time and space would also be finite creations.

The following question is posed to a NASA Astrophysicist

The Question
(Submitted November 08, 1997)

What is the big bang theory? What do you believe?

The Answer

'The big bang theory is the theory that the universe started from a single point, and has been expanding ever since.

This has been well-established by observations, such as the apparent movement of galaxies away from us, and the cosmic microwave background radiation believed to be the leftover light from the big bang.

The evidence for a big bang having taken place about 15 to 20 billion years ago is overwhelming, so I naturally believe that it is the case.

However, if your real question is "why did the big bang happen in the first place?" then that ceases to be an astronomical question, but a religious one.

Some astronomers, who are religious, argue that the big bang theory confirms the existence of God and the basic elements of the creation story as told in the Bible. First came light, then the heavens, then the Earth ...

However, many other scientists do not. Scientists, like people in most any profession, have a vast diversity of religious beliefs. Some of us attend houses of worship, others do not. Some of us consider ourselves very religious, others consider ourselves staunch atheists. Just because we study astronomy does not mean we have any more agreement as to the “why'' questions than anyone else.

On the other hand, it is safe to say that as scientists we can agree on an approach to learning about nature and the universe. This approach is one of using observations to test theories. And when a theory has been tested as much as the big bang theory, with each test reconfirming its validity, then we believe that it likely true -- at least more true than those theories which have failed the observational tests.

Good luck on your quest for the truth.

Jonathan Keohane for Ask an Astrophysicist[15]

There are many in the scientific community who believe in the big bang theory, so it is at least a reasonable theory for the theist to consider.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.'

The Christian God?

If the first cause argument is valid, does it prove the Christian God? No. I think that God needs to reveal himself supernaturally to be understood as a personal being. However, does the idea of a first cause seem to agree with the concept of God in the Bible? Yes, in general terms. God is shown in Genesis to have been a living reality before creation, and therefore can be deduced as existing before matter, time or space or anything that human beings can empirically measure. Perhaps angelic beings existed before the creation of matter, but the deduction is that at one point God created time and the angels as well. 

A critic could argue that in limitless eternity, there could be many Gods and there is no reason to believe in one God. However, I would think that the infinite/limitless nature of the first cause would mean that there would only be one God, since two or more limitless Gods would be a logical contradiction. I would state that a hypothetical infinite array of Gods that could have existed before time in an eternal state would far more likely actually be one infinite God of one substance. I have also read critics that suggest that God within the first cause argument could have been some type of creature and not the benevolent God of Christianity. 

Since physical matter, time and space has a beginning and is not eternal, I have great difficulty thinking it a reasonable possibility that the first cause was a unicorn, or horrific monster, rather than a non-physical being. As far as God’s benevolence, I think the primary evidence for his nature and character would come via revelation. In Scripture God is called the Alpha and Omega (Isaiah and Revelation), the beginning and the end, and this concept seems to be in line with that of first cause. The idea being God was present from the beginning of creation, and will be present forever.[16] However, as God is uncaused and necessary and of necessity; God as first cause, is by default the good. If anything is good, it would be that which is necessary, infinite and external.

[1] In Arabic tradition, speech or discourse used to discuss speculative theology.[2] Craig (1991)(2006: 2).[3] Craig (1991)(2006: 12).[4] Craig (1991)(2006: 12-13).[5] The fundamental unit of electromagnetic energy.[6] Gijsbers, Victor (2006: 1).[7] Sklar (1996: 615).[8] Sklar (1996: 615).[9] Gijsbers, Victor (2006: 1).[10] Kreeft, Peter (2006: 4).[11] Blackburn (1996: 140).[12] Craig (1991)(2006: 7).[13] Craig (1991)(2006: 7).[14] Craig (1991)(2006: 10).[15] Keohane (1997: 1).[16] Browning, W.R.F. (1997: 12).

---

Vicious Regress

(If there is an infinite distance between Vancouver and Calgary, one will never arrive in Calgary)

In the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Simon Blackburn discusses ‘infinite regress’ and mentions that this occurs in a vicious way whenever a problem tries to solve itself and yet remains with the same problem it had previously. Blackburn (1996: 324) A vicious regress is an infinite regress that does not solve its own problem, while a benign regress is an infinite regress that does not fail to solve its own problem. Blackburn (1996: 324). Blackburn writes that there is frequently room for debate on what is a vicious regress or benign regress. Blackburn (1996: 324).

Bradley mentions that a vicious regress is not illogical, and that it is not vicious regress to state that each act of free choice is caused by another act of free choice. I agree that it is not necessarily illogical, but disagree that the argument as described is not a vicious regress.

BLACKBURN, S. (1996) 'First Cause Argument', in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

BLACKBURN, S. (1996) ‘Regress’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

BRADLEY, RAYMOND D. (1996) ‘Infinite Regress Argument’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

BROWNING, W. R. F. (1997) 'Alpha', in Oxford Dictionary of The Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.

CRAIG, WILLIAM LANE, (1991)(2006) ‘The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe’,Truth: A Journal of Modern Thought 3 (1991) 85-96. 

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html

pp. 1-18.

GIJSBERS, VICTOR, (2006) ‘Theistic Arguments: First Cause’

http://positiveatheism.org/faq/firstcause.htm
pp. 1-2.

KEOHANE, JONATHAN, (1997) ‘Big Bang Theory’

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/971108a.html
p. 1.

KREEFT, PETER, (2006) ‘The First Cause Argument’ excerpted from Fundamentals of Faith.

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0168.html
pp. 1-5.

SKLAR, LAWRENCE, (1996) ‘Philosophy of Science’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

A fallacy of inconsistency: Premises should support the conclusion

A fallacy of inconsistency: Premises should support the conclusion

Photo: Civil Engineering Discoveries, LinkedIn, Germany, August 17, 2021

Original entry 

Monday, July 04, 2016 Conclusion which denies premises & fallacy of inconsistency

Pirie

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

A fallacy of inconsistency.

This is the conclusion that denies its own premises. (66).

Pire writes that this type of argument maintains one thing in the premises and then denies that same thing in the conclusion. (66).

This is a fallacy of inconsistency. (67).

From Elements of Reasoning

Validity in deductive arguments is a technical term in logic. Elements (1997: 33). The concept of true premises and false conclusion would be 'inconceivable in a valid argument'. Elements (1997: 33). In other words, (TF). Validity is a set of premises supporting a conclusion. Technically in logic the premises do not have to be true, simply valid. Elements (1997: 33). Therefore a valid deductive argument can have

False premises and a true conclusion (FT)

False premises and a false conclusion (FF)

True premises and a true conclusion (TT)

However

True premises and a false conclusion (TF) is invalid.

Valid arguments with all true premises are called sound arguments. These also have true conclusions.

Pirie explains that a conclusion must be consistent with the arguments present in support of it. (66).

A conclusion must be reasonably and legitimately supported by propositions/premises.

Based on certain religious argumentation presented in history, Pirie then states: 'But if everything must have a cause, how can there be such a thing as an uncaused cause?' (67). The author opines that throughout history, 'first cause' is an example of this fallacy. (67). To avoid this problem. he reasons, attempts have usually led to examples that  'beg the question' and 'subvert the argument', being used.

'Everything' is a key term in his example.

I do not see fallacious means as being required, such as circular reasoning or unreasonable assumption, or unreasonable avoidance. A key here is to eliminate the term 'everything' when discussing 'first cause'. To differ from the author's sceptical perspective, one could state with various propositions that the universe, time and matter are finite, the finite has origin. Therefore there is an infinite first cause.

This is not a fallacious or illogical argument.

A new concept is being introduced into the conclusion that is not 'everything' noted in Pirie's example. Of course the concepts are related as the propositions are supposed to support and prove the conclusion.

Further, hypothetically, based on the same propositions, the conclusion for example, could assume vicious regress, or that there is no cause and we have mystery. Pirie does not mention and avoids the issue of vicious regress in this entry. If there is not a first cause and instead there is a supposedly an implied, infinite regress of causes, it is a vicious regress (an infinite regress that does not solve its own problem). As I have noted in a recent post, there is debate on whether or not a vicious regress is illogical, but I state that it is certainly unreasonable, in this context, because it does not solve its own problem.

Appealing to mystery, may occur because of lack of significant cumulative evidences. It is often an intellectual cop-out as pointed out to me by Dr. William Kay, Wales, one of my United Kingdom, academic tutors. Mystery too, does not solve its own problem. I am not stating therefore that it is always error to state 'I do not know'.

I have discussed vicious regress on this site with the assistance of the work of Simon Blackburn and others. I reason this miss on this entry in the Pirie text, is a much larger philosophical problem than the misuse of the term 'everything' Pirie raised, although I appreciate this entry and the text, therefore the review. I have added a Vicious Regress section after this one.

Pirie seems critical that a divine being would be the exception to the rule, but 'everything' other than God in existence would be finite and God would be infinite, therefore to make a separation and distinction is not fallacious. I disagree with Pirie (67) and reason it is obviously true that an infinite, first cause, God, would be categorically different than everything finite in context. Even a non-theist could reason this theoretically without belief. I agree with the author that the universe is the universe (67), but it is finite. In significant contrast, God is infinite and eternal as transcendent as well as being immanent while being in sovereign control over finite creation.

From this entry, I can appreciate Pirie for making it apparent that in regard to this issue theists need to use clear and concise premises and arguments. These type of critiques are a reason secular philosophy and philosophy of religion are intellectually valuable academic disciplines. This type of reading was consistently required in my British MPhil and PhD research theses.

Vicious Regress 

My explanation  

A god, is caused by a god, is caused by a god, is caused by a god, ad infinitum, is an infinite regress. It is a vicious regress, because it does not solve its own problem and requires a first cause, without a cause. (In philosophy of religion, the first cause, can be considered what is necessary and exists by necessity. From a biblical perspective this is Almighty God, infinite and eternal.) 

A choice is caused by a choice, is caused by a choice, is caused by a choice, ad infinitum, is an infinite regress. It is a vicious regress, because it does not solve its own problem and requires a first cause, without a cause. (Human choice is traced back to human nature. Human nature is traced back to its creator, God, that has infinite, eternal nature and will/choice.) 

Time is caused by time, is caused by time, is caused by time, ad infinitum, is an infinite regress. It is a vicious regress, because it does not solve its own problem and requires a first cause, without a cause. (If there is an infinite distance between Maple Ridge and Vancouver, one will never arrive in Vancouver. There is no amount of time that will see this distance travelled.) 

Prime Time

Prime Time Sports was hosted by the intelligent Bob McCown.

January 16, 2017 (Paraphrased)

Caller: The baseball player mentioned, signed with a new agent. But how did he find that agent? Did he not need an agent to find that agent?

Host: The player knows the industry and player agents. If you are meaning that the player needed to find an agent to find an agent, then that agent would need to find an agent to infinitude.

Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy

In the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Simon Blackburn discusses ‘infinite regress’ and mentions that this occurs in a vicious way whenever a problem tries to solve itself and yet remains with the same problem it had previously. Blackburn (1996: 324) A vicious regress is an infinite regress that does not solve its own problem, while a benign regress is an infinite regress that does not fail to solve its own problem. Blackburn (1996: 324). Blackburn writes that there is frequently room for debate on what is a vicious regress or benign regress. Blackburn (1996: 324).

An example of a benign regress is infinite numbers both plus and minus, as they in reality represent conceptualized things as opposed to being real things. 'Problem' solved. Therefore: Based on my philosophical reading and Blackburn's explanation, it can be deduced that philosophers would debate whether a particular vicious regress is illogical and whether it is using a logical fallacy. Further: An argument can be logical and not sound, as sound arguments are not the only valid arguments but are those where 'all the premises are true'. (1997: 35). 

The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy

Whether or not a particular vicious regress, and the examples I raised, are illogical and using a logical fallacy in the sense of invalid argument is of secondary importance. It is of primary importance when a vicious regress is not reasonable and does not solve its own problem and is fallacious as in faulty reasoning. That is the case with my three examples, I reason. Bradley (371) mentions that it is not illogical, and not a vicious regress that each act of free choice is caused by another act of free choice. I agree that it is not necessarily illogical, but disagree that the argument as described is not a vicious regress. A vicious regress can be stopped by stating as premise that a particular agent is sufficient.

Also within The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, William Tolhurst writes that a vicious regress is in some way unacceptable as it would include an infinite series of items dependent on prior items. A vicious regress may be impossible to hold to philosophically, or it may be inconsistent. Tolhurst (1996: 835). 

BLACKBURN, S. (1996) ‘Regress’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

BRADLEY, RAYMOND D. (1996) ‘Infinite Regress Argument’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.

CRAIG, WILLIAM LANE, (1991)(2006) ‘The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe’,Truth: A Journal of Modern Thought 3 (1991) 85-96. http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html pp. 1-18.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1754)(2006) Freedom of the Will, Flower Mound, Texas.http://www.jonathanedwards.com

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. 

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

SLICK, MATTHEW J. (2006) 'A logical proof that Mormonism is false', Meridian, Idaho, Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, http://www.carm.org/lds/infinity.htm 

SMITH, JOSEPH (1844)(2006) ‘Sermon by the Prophet-The Christian Godhead-Plurality of Gods’, History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473-479. http://www.utlm.org 

TOLHURST, TOLHURST, WILLIAM (1996) 'Vicious Regress', in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Sufficient cause?

Sandy, Utah, May 2018

Reasons to Believe: Newsletter (2019), September/October, Reasons to Believe, Covina, California.

(Science and theology)

Another interesting and helpful newsletter article from Reasons to Believe. Can we escape the beginning? Excerpt from Escaping the Beginning? By Jeff Zweerink.

It is asked (paraphrased), did the universe began to exist, or did it always exist. (2). The universe has no conscious thought, no personality. (2). It exists but does not consciously provide life for what exists (paraphrased).

It is reasoned that the universe must have a sufficient cause. (2). The possibility of a physical sufficient cause is listed (2), as is the possibility of a nonphysical sufficient cause. (2).

Possibly 'something nonphysical, conscious and personal created the universe for a purpose.' (2).

The writer states that scientists have developed scientific tools that 'address this question.' (2). But these do not offer the 'certainty' that 'comes with the deductive arguments of philosophy or declarative statements of theology.' (2).

The article explains 'the models that best account for all the data are those where the universe began to exist.' (2).

Perhaps here, 'declarative statements' arise from biblical theology. Deductive arguments with premises and conclusions exist within the academic disciplines of philosophy, philosophy of religion, philosophical theology and systematic theology (as examples). I think deductive arguments could arise from biblical theology, but I can appreciate the intellectual distinction provided by the writer in this short article.

Arriving in Vancouver via Toronto, April 2018

First Cause (Philosophy of Religion &Theology) 

(My own work)

First cause is a major philosophical problem.

As matter (physical reality) is finite and cannot be its own cause as this would cause a vicious regress, it requires a cause beyond matter, including beyond time and space, which are also finite.

As example, one also cannot have a vicious regress of time or the present time would never be arrived. A vicious regress never solves its own problem...(logical or not).

Philosophical arguments for first cause do not prove the existence of the Biblical God but can serve as parallel truth to the creation story of Genesis 1. I use arguments for God being philosophically and theologically the first cause and this parallels the Genesis (1-3) creation account without being explicitly biblical. My biblical arguments, based on the ancient texts, are separate.

Deism or a related theism, in my mind is a far more likely alternative to Christianity than a non-theistic view, although I fully believe in the Biblical texts. Although Deism, and related theisms, do not accept a God that reveals self it still accepts the God of first cause. First cause provides premises which prove, philosophically and theologically, in a sense, the existence of God. God, as infinite, eternal and omnipotent, the deduced first and sufficient cause of all that is finite. God would also be conscious and within Judaism and Christianity, personal.

Eastern British Columbia tour, July-August, 2018

BLACKBURN, S. (1996) ‘Regress’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

BRADLEY, RAYMOND D. (1996) ‘Infinite Regress Argument’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Reasons to Believe: Newsletter (2019), September/October, Reasons to Believe, Covina, California.

Conclusion which denies premises & fallacy of inconsistency

Last week

Conclusion which denies premises & fallacy of inconsistency

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

This is the conclusion that denies its own premises. (66).

Pire writes that this type of argument maintains one thing in the premises and then denies that same thing in the conclusion. (66).

This is a fallacy of inconsistency. (67).

From Elements of Reasoning:

Validity in deductive arguments is a technical term in logic. Elements (1997: 33).

The concept of true premises and false conclusion would be 'inconceivable in a valid argument'. Elements (1997: 33).

Validity is a set of premises supporting a conclusion. Technically in logic the premises do not have to be true, simply valid. Elements (1997: 33). Therefore a valid deductive argument can have

False premises and a true conclusion (FT)

False premises and a false conclusion (FF)

True premises and a true conclusion (TT)

However

True premises and a false conclusion (TF) is invalid.

Valid arguments with all true premises are called sound arguments. These also have true conclusions.

Pirie explains that a conclusion must be consistent with the arguments present in support of it. (66).

A conclusion must be reasonably and legitimately supported by propositions/premises.

Based on certain religious argumentation presented in history, Pirie then states: 'But if everything must have a cause, how can there be such a thing as an uncaused cause?' (67). The author opines that throughout history, 'first cause' is an example of this fallacy. (67). To avoid this problem. he reasons, attempts have usually led to examples that  'beg the question' and 'subvert the argument', being used.

'Everything' is a key term in his example.

I do not see fallacious means as being required, such as circular reasoning or unreasonable assumption, or unreasonable avoidance.

A key here is to eliminate the term 'everything' when discussing 'first cause'. To differ from the author's sceptical perspective, one could state with various propositions that the universe, time, space and matter are finite. The finite has origin. Therefore there is an infinite first cause.

This is not a fallacious or illogical argument.

A new concept is being introduced into the conclusion that is not 'everything' noted in Pirie's example. Of course the concepts are related as the propositions are supposed to support and prove the conclusion.

Further, hypothetically, based on the same propositions, the conclusion for example, could assume vicious regress, or that there is no cause and we have mystery.

Pirie does not mention and avoids the issue of vicious regress in this entry. If there is not a first cause and instead there is a supposedly an implied, infinite regress of causes, it is a vicious regress (an infinite regress that does not solve its own problem). As I have noted in a recent post, there is debate on whether or not a vicious regress is illogical, but I state that it is certainly unreasonable, in this context, because it does not solve its own problem.

Appealing to mystery, may occur because of lack of significant cumulative evidences. It is often an intellectual cop-out as pointed out to me by Dr. William Kay, Wales, one of my United Kingdom, academic tutors. Mystery too, does not solve its own problem. I am not stating therefore that it is always error to state 'I do not know'.

I have discussed vicious regress on this site with the assistance of the work of Simon Blackburn and others. I reason this miss on this entry in the Pirie text, is a much larger philosophical problem than the misuse of the term 'everything' Pirie raised, although I appreciate this entry and the text, therefore the review.

Pirie seems critical that a divine being would be the exception to the rule, but 'everything' other than God in existence would be finite and God would be infinite, therefore to make a separation and distinction is not fallacious. I disagree with Pirie (67) and reason it is obviously true that an infinite, first cause, God, would be categorically different than everything finite in context. Even a non-theist could reason this theoretically without belief. I agree with the author that the universe is the universe (67), but it is finite. In significant contrast, God is infinite and eternal as transcendent as well as being immanent while being in sovereign control over finite creation.

From this entry I can appreciate Pirie for making it apparent that in regard to this issue theists need to use clear and concise premises and arguments. These type of critiques are a reason secular philosophy and philosophy of religion are intellectually valuable academic disciplines. This type of reading was consistently required in my British MPhil and PhD research theses.

BLACKBURN, S. (1996) 'First Cause Argument', in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

BLACKBURN, S. (1996) ‘Regress’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

BRADLEY, RAYMOND D. (1996) ‘Infinite Regress Argument’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.

CRAIG, WILLIAM LANE, (1991)(2006) ‘The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe’,Truth: A Journal of Modern Thought 3 (1991) 85-96. http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html pp. 1-18. 

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1754)(2006) Freedom of the Will, Flower Mound, Texas.http://www.jonathanedwards.com 

GIJSBERS, VICTOR, (2006) ‘Theistic Arguments: First Cause’http://positiveatheism.org/faq/firstcause.htm pp. 1-2. 

KREEFT, PETER, (2006) ‘The First Cause Argument’ excerpted from Fundamentals of Faith.http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0168.html pp. 1-5.

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

SKLAR, LAWRENCE, (1996) ‘Philosophy of Science’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

TOLHURST, TOLHURST, WILLIAM (1996) 'Vicious Regress', in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Brief On Omnipotence & Omniscience

Drina Gorge, Serbia_trekearth

PhD Edit

Mill rejects Christianity[1] and traditional Christian doctrine concerning omnipotence.[2]  Mill’s deity is similar to the ‘Platonic Demiurge’ and this deity simply develops matter from preexisting chaos and therefore would not only be limited in power but also finite in nature.  Mill supports a concept of a first cause as in a series of events[3] but this leaves the nagging question and problem of what was the cause of the Demiurge?  An infinite eternal God can be understood as the first cause not needing a cause. A finite deity, although admittedly logically possible, requires further explanation. If the being is not revealed through Scriptural revelation, it is a God of primarily philosophical speculation and requires further elaboration on the part of Mill in regard to, for instance, why humanity should believe in and follow this type of deity, assuming that there is not a greater, infinite, eternal first cause that would necessarily exist behind that being.

October 21, 2014

Further

I take a Biblical, Reformed view that God causes and wills all things. It is demonstrated that God has sovereign control of creation from Genesis to Revelation as eternal God.

God, therefore would have complete omnipotence. God would be the first cause.

God would also have omniscience in regard to future events.

However, for balance, even if in reality somehow philosophically and theologically, God cannot be logically omniscient, as in the future cannot be known by an infinite, omnipotent being; God as first cause would cause the future along with secondary causes, and therefore the results would be the same.

Therefore, I hold that God does have omniscience, but even if God does not, God being infinite and omnipotent is still ‘virtually omniscient’ and still able to predict the future in Scripture and bring about eschatological events.

God certainly would be able to control the secondary causes, and each requires a primary cause.

A secondary cause having significant moral freedom as long as not forced or coerced to commit thoughts, acts, actions.

MILL, JOHN STUART (1789-1861)(2003) Utilitarianism and On Liberty, Mary Warnock (ed.), Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.

MILL, JOHN STUART (1825-1868)(1984) Essays on Equality, Law, and Education, John M. Robson (ed.), University of Toronto Press, Toronto, University of Toronto Press.

MILL, JOHN STUART (1833)(1985)(2009) Theism: John Stuart Mill, The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume X - Essays on Ethics, Religion, and Society, Toronto, University of Toronto Press.

MILL, JOHN STUART (1874)(2002) The Utility of Religion, London, Longman, Green, and Reader.

MILL, JOHN STUART (1874)(1885)  Nature the Utility of Religion and Theism, London,

Longmans, Green and Co. 

---

[1] Mill (1874)(2002: 16). 

[2] Mill (1833)(1985)(2009: 24).

[3] Mill (1833)(1985)(2009: 7). 

Claim: The existence of God is not provable or disprovable

From my good friend, Ernest Hepner

Claim: The existence of God is not provable or disprovable

Introduction

This was implied by a major (intellectual) American broadcaster, that appears on Canadian media, yesterday, with the question, ‘Does God exist?’ meaning he views it as not provable that God, does or does not exist.

Louis P. Pojman explains that the term a priori comes from the Latin “preceding” and is knowledge that is not based on sense experience but is innate or known to human beings by the meanings of words and definitions. Pojman (1996: 595).

Arthur Pap defines a priori knowledge as being independent of experience. Pap (1973: 666). Since this knowledge leads to truth independent of experience, once a concept is understood it will be seen as necessarily true logically, meaning that it will not be refuted at any time empirically (through the use of the senses). Pap (1973: 667).

Simon Blackburn notes that a proposition is knowable a priori if it can be known without experience of a certain set of events in the actual world. Blackburn allows for some experience to be obtained in order for a priori knowledge to occur. Blackburn (1996: 21). He explains that this type of knowledge is very controversial and it is not clear how pure thought without the use of experience can lead to any true knowledge at all. Blackburn (1996: 21).

A priori reasoning will also be used within rationalism.

Some empiricists have attempted to deny that any real knowledge can be obtained from a priori means. Blackburn (1996: 21).

Laurence BonJour notes that many empiricists would hold that all actual philosophical concepts are derived and known through experience. BonJour (1996: 30).

This could lead to scientism… Scientism: A pejorative term for the concept that only the methods of natural science and related categories form the elements for any philosophical or other enquiry. Blackburn (1996: 344).

Blackburn points out that Immanuel Kant dealt with this issue as it was supposed that a priori concepts cannot be understood from experience alone but come from presuppositions in a mode of thought about reality. Blackburn (1996: 22).

In the Critique of Pure Reason of 1781 and revised in 1787, Kant explains that the forms of appearance from which sensations can be understood are not themselves the empirical sensations. Kant (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006: 66).

BonJour states that a priori knowledge is independent of empirical experience, meaning that something can be accepted as knowledge if it does not depend upon sensory experience. BonJour (1996: 29). Very importantly in my view, BonJour explains that a deductively valid argument can use a priori reasoning, even if the correctness of the argument is challenged. BonJour (1996: 30).

This would be very important for non-empirical reasoning in the areas of theology and philosophy in regard to the problem of evil and other topics, such as the existence of God. But even in other disciplines such as scientific theory where logical and reasonable deductions are at times made without empirical evidence.

In other words, it is possible to deduce with logic, reason, and argumentation, truth, even without empirical evidence, the existence of God.

BonJour mentions that rationalists that state God exists are using a priori reasoning. I do not deny that human beings have presuppositions in the areas of knowledge, but I reason that experience and God given nature influences those concepts. It seems doubtful to me that human beings can have philosophical presuppositions without some innate understanding and experience to make sense of reality in order to presuppose.

Pojman writes that a posteriori comes the Latin “the later” and is knowledge that is obtained from human sense experience only, as in the five senses. Pojman (1996: 595). Blackburn reasons that something can be known a posteriori when it cannot be known a priori. Blackburn (1996: 21-22).

First Cause: Philosophy of Religion &Theology

Even if the Hebrew Bible and New Testament documents could be proven historically false (not my academic or personal, position), this in my mind would in no way by default demonstrate the likelihood of secularism, atheism or agnosticism as correct views. First cause is a major philosophical problem. As matter is finite and cannot be its own cause as this would cause a vicious regress, it requires a cause beyond matter and time and space, which are also finite. As example, one also cannot have a vicious regress of time or the present time would never be arrived.

A vicious regress never solves its own problem...(logical or not).

Philosophical arguments for first cause do not prove the existence of the Biblical God but can serve as parallel truth to the creation story of Genesis 1. I use arguments for God being philosophically and theologically the first cause and this parallels the Genesis (1-3) creation account without being explicitly biblical. Deism or a related theism, in my mind is a far more likely alternative to Christianity than a non-theistic view, although I fully believe in the Biblical texts. Although Deism, and related theisms, do not accept a God that reveals self it still accepts the God of first cause.

First cause provides premises which prove, philosophically and theologically, in a sense, the existence of God.

Bible: Biblical Studies & Theology

It is also Biblical and reasonable to deduce that God creates human beings with certain innate understanding of reality that will be assisted by experience. Romans 1:19 explains that God made human beings with a natural understanding of his existence. Perhaps this would be a priori knowledge and would not exist entirely on human presuppositions. The existence of natural knowledge of God does not necessarily mean that human beings worship or obey God.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth [a]in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident [b]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Footnotes: Romans 1:18 Or by Romans 1:19 Or among

Within a biblical Christian worldview and Christian theology, the Scripture is legitimate, well-documented with manuscript evidence, religious history. God through Jesus Christ has revealed himself to finite humanity in an effective, limited, empirical fashion, and this would be considered a posteriori knowledge of God, although God as pure spirit remains beyond the physical senses as a priori.

Jesus Christ as God’s key supernatural representative (yet God-man), was preceded by Hebrew Bible, prophets and writers and John the Baptist in the New Testament, and followed by the disciples of Jesus Christ and the apostles and scribes in the New Testament era. Post-New Testament era, followed by the Church Fathers, forward.

The Scripture provides religious history, via supernatural and human sources, which in a sense, proves the existence of God.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

BONJOUR, LAURENCE. (1996) ‘A Priori’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

EDWARDS, PAUL AND ARTHUR PAP (1973) (eds), ‘A priori knowledge: Introduction’, A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

HUME, DAVID (1739-1740)(1973) ‘A Treatise of Human Nature’, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press. 

HUME, DAVID (1779)(2004) Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Digireads.com/Neeland Media LLC, Lawrence, Kansas.  

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated by Norman Kemp Smith, London, Macmillan. http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/cpr/toc.html.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1997) Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Mary Gregor (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1898)(2006) The Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, London, Longmans, Green, and Co. http://philosophy.eserver.org/kant/critique-of-practical-reaso.txt 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1791)(2001) ‘On The Miscarriage of All Philosophical Trials in Theodicy’, in Religion and Rational Theology, Translated by George di Giovanni and Allen Wood, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

May 20, 2023: From Blogger 

God is the first cause of all things within divine perfect and permissible wills. God is also the primary cause of all things, within divine perfect and permissible wills. Angelic, demonic and human beings would be secondary causes, as non-exhaustive examples, of simultaneous (with primary cause) thoughts, will, acts and actions. The primary cause motives of God would be infinite and holy. The secondary cause motives of angels would be finite and holy. The secondary cause motives of demonic beings and human beings would be finite and tainted by evil to various degrees. Demonic motives thoroughly evil, it can be deduced. The Holy Spirit guided believer can prayerfully aim for secondary motives that would be within God's perfect will, although still tainted until the resurrection in body (or at least Paradise in spirit). (1 Corinthians 15, 2 Corinthians 12).

Reply to tikno

Reply to tikno

Photo: Shenandoah National Park, Virginia, February 2021, Facebook 

Preface

Saturday, February 20, 2021: Different evil entities? (sermon) II 

Thursday, February 25, 2021: The Doctrine of Divine Simplicity: Very non-exhaustive I

I replied to tinko's comments.

tinko: link provided

Between logic and unlogic - science and faith: August 28, 2010

Cited

Maybe this post can be used as a reflections of how you deal with logic and faith (unlogic). After that, let people know of what you think. Just see how you react to this post.If you're very religious people (almost fanatic) then I guess your reaction will be very different to those who think more logical in response to various occurrence in these universe or even to your daily life.

Reply

Hi tinko,

Blessings to you and family. There are religious people and non-religious people that can be thinking logically or illogically and use logic or illogic. In every worldview there are ignorant, uneducated persons that do not rely significantly on logic and reason.

Science, Theology, Philosophy of Religion/Philosophy, Biblical Studies, Archaeology, Psychology, Medical Science, Law, Mathematics, are all examples of college and University level academic disciplines that require the use of logic and also reason, to be reasonably, successfully understood to even achieve even a passing grade.

To achieve a degree or level of achievement in any of these academic disciplines requires the significant use of both logic and reason. 

As only God is infinite, only God has infinite knowledge. As all things created, and all rational entities are finite, there is an aspect of faith with knowledge for human beings in each and every worldview, religious or not. 

Human beings and all angelic beings, angelic/demonic would be finite. To disobey God, and therefore oppose God through a corrupt nature, consciousness, desires, will, acts/actions is not just the difference between being positive and negative. It is sin (Genesis 1-3, Romans 1-6, Galatians, Ephesians 1-2, Hebrews) as examples. There is no salvation for fallen angels, but there is salvation for those that through regeneration (John 3, Titus 3) trust in the applied, salvific, atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ.

To quote you tikno

At least that's my personal understanding as ordinary people.

I appreciate the humility. I am ordinary and average in many ways. But, by God's grace and by God's will, I have been able research, write, edit and revise within certain, often difficult, academic disciplines. Here are some links for you to ponder on and some citations: 

Scientism

Archived search: scientism 

Cited 

Scientism 

Blackburn: Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy 

Scientism: A pejorative term for the concept that only the methods of natural science and related categories form the elements for any philosophical or other enquiry. Blackburn (1996: 344). 

From The Concise Oxford Dictionary 

Scientism: 1 a a method or doctrine regarded as characteristic of scientists b the use of practice of this. 2 often derogatory, an excessive belief in or application of scientific method. Oxford (1995: 1236). 

Oxford Science 

Empiricism: 'Denotes a result that is observed by experiment or observation rather than by theory.' (287). I view empiricism as a legitimate academic approach in reasonable contexts, but academia overall, does also require the use of philosophical approaches to gain knowledge and truth.

Immanuel Kant

SZUDEK, ANDY & TORSLEY, SARAH (2018) The Little Book of Philosophy, Landau Cecile (Ed), London, DK Publishing

The text under review (SZUDEK) explains that Kant argues that empiricism and scientific knowledge provides vital answers but is not 'the whole answer' (104). The text explains: 'That a true empiricist would argue against Kant that all acquaintances come from experience, in other words, nothing is apriori.' (104-105). The idea of God creating the world, is an apriori concept. (105).

The Nature of God

Archived search: the existence of God

Saturday, May 11, 2019: Claim: The existence of God is not provable or disprovable 

First Cause: Philosophy of Religion &Theology

Even if the Hebrew Bible and New Testament documents could be proven historically false (not my academic or personal, position), this in my mind would in no way by default demonstrate the likelihood of secularism, atheism or agnosticism as correct views. 

First cause is a major philosophical problem. As matter is time, space, finite and cannot be their own cause as this would cause a vicious regress, it requires a cause beyond matter and time and space, which are also finite. As example, one also cannot have a vicious regress of time or the present time would never be arrived. A vicious regress never solves its own problem...(logical or not). 

Philosophical arguments for first cause do not prove the existence of the Biblical God but can serve as parallel truth to the creation story of Genesis 1. I use arguments for God being philosophically and theologically the first cause and this parallels the Genesis (1-3) creation account without being explicitly biblical. Deism or a related theism, in my mind is a far more likely alternative to Christianity than a non-theistic view, although I fully believe in the Biblical texts. 

Although Deism, and related theisms, do not accept a God that reveals self it still accepts the God of first cause. First cause provides premises which prove, philosophically and theologically, in a sense, the existence of God. 

God: Biblical Studies & Theology

It is also Biblical and reasonable to deduce that God creates human beings with certain innate understanding of reality that will be assisted by experience. 

Romans 1:19 explains that God made human beings with a natural understanding of his existence. Perhaps this would be a priori knowledge and would not exist entirely on human presuppositions. The existence of natural knowledge of God does not necessarily mean that human beings worship or obey God. 

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth [a]in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident [b]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. Footnotes: Romans 1:18 Or by Romans 1:19 Or among 

Within a biblical Christian worldview and Christian theology, the Scripture is legitimate, well-documented with manuscript evidence, religious history. God through Jesus Christ has revealed himself to finite humanity in an effective, limited, empirical fashion, and this would be considered a posteriori knowledge of God, although God as pure spirit remains beyond the physical senses as a priori. 

Jesus Christ as God’s key supernatural representative (yet God-man), was preceded by Hebrew Bible, prophets and writers and John the Baptist in the New Testament, and followed by the disciples of Jesus Christ and the apostles and scribes in the New Testament era. Post-New Testament era, followed by the Church Fathers, forward. The Scripture provides religious history, via supernatural and human sources, which in a sense, proves the existence of God. 

Logic

Archived search: logic 

A main text used

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy).

Fallacies

Archived search: fallacies 

A main text used

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London. 

---

AMERIKS, KARL (1999) ‘Kant, Immanuel’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

BONJOUR, LAURENCE. (1996) ‘A Priori’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

EDWARDS, PAUL AND ARTHUR PAP (1973) (eds), ‘A priori knowledge: Introduction’, A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press. 

GUYER, PAUL AND ALLEN W, in KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

HUME, DAVID (1739-1740)(1973) ‘A Treatise of Human Nature’, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press. 

HUME, DAVID (1779)(2004) Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Digireads.com/Neeland Media LLC, Lawrence, Kansas.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated by Norman Kemp Smith, London, Macmillan. http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/cpr/toc.html. 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1997) Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Mary Gregor (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1898)(2006) The Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, London, Longmans, Green, and Co. http://philosophy.eserver.org/kant/critique-of-practical-reaso.txt 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1791)(2001) ‘On The Miscarriage of All Philosophical Trials in Theodicy’, in Religion and Rational Theology, Translated by George di Giovanni and Allen Wood, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

OXFORD DICTIONARY OF SCIENCE (2010) Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London. 

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy).

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company. 

SZUDEK, ANDY & TORSLEY, SARAH (2018) The Little Book of Philosophy, Landau Cecile (Ed), London, DK Publishing

THE CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY (1995) Della Thompson (ed.), Oxford, Clarendon Press. 

A Vicious Regress

A Vicious Regress

2006 article, reformatted and edited on August 1, 2022.

Photos: McSween, BC (trekearth)

Introduction

The concept of infinite regression has been discussed in two of my previous articles, but I wanted to deal with the topic primarily in this posting.

In the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Simon Blackburn discusses ‘infinite regress’ and mentions that this occurs in a vicious way whenever a problem tries to solve itself and yet remains with the same problem it had previously.[1] A vicious regress is an infinite regress that does not solve its own problem, while a benign regress is an infinite regress that does not fail to solve its own problem.[2] Blackburn writes that there is frequently room for debate on what is a vicious regress or benign regress.[3]

In The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, William Tolhurst writes that a vicious regress is in some way unacceptable as it would include an infinite series of items dependent on prior items.[4] A vicious regress may be impossible to hold to philosophically, or it may be inconsistent.[5] From the same volume, Raymond D. Bradley cautions that the mere existence of an infinite series is not the same as infinite regression, and is not philosophically objectionable.[6] His first example is that every natural number (a positive integer, 1,2,3,4, …, or a non-negative integer, 0,1,2,3,4,…) has a successor that is a natural number.[7] Bradley writes that it would not be illogical to state that each free act of consequence is a result of an act of free choice.[8] Bradley thinks that trying to answer infinite regress by bringing in the idea of the theist’s God makes no sense.[9]

As usual, Blackburn offers reasonable and helpful definitions and explanations. I also find Tolhurst’s ideas helpful. I agree with Bradley that an infinite series of numbers is not objectionable or a vicious regress. I do not doubt that we can hypothetically at least, count from 0 or 1 to infinity, but we are dealing with hypothetical numbers, and not actual things. Numbers are members or sets used to describe real things. For example, I could say I have 200 compact discs but it would be the compact discs that are actual things and not the number 200.

Edwards and Free Choice

Bradley mentions that it is not illogical, and not a vicious regress that each act of free choice is caused by another act of free choice. Jonathan Edwards deals with this issue in a previous blog article I wrote entitled, Jonathan Edwards and Libertarian Free Will. Again, for philosophical clarity, in my view choices are real things, not members or sets like numbers used to describe real things.

Thursday, August 31, 2006 Jonathan Edwards and Libertarian Free Will

Edwards thinks that if the human will determines the will and resulting choices, and since every choice must have a cause, then a chain is established where a will and choice is determined by a preceding will and choice. Therefore, if the will determines its own free acts, then every free act of will and choice is determined by a preceding act of will and choice. If a preceding act of will also be of free choice, then that too was self-determined. What Edwards is stating is that in the act of causing a free choice (choice1), the cause of that choice was also made freely (choice2), and the cause of that choice was made freely (choice3) and so on.[10] This would be a vicious regress since it could not be determined what caused human choice initially, because every free choice was caused by a previous free choice. Edwards instead believed that human choices were a result of human nature originally created by God’s will. This human nature had become corrupted and as a result human beings desired and had motivation to do sinful acts only that were not pleasing to God.

A possible way out of this contradiction is to come to the last act of will and choice and state that it is not self-determined, but is rather determined without the use of a will and choice. However, to Edwards, if the initial act of will and choice within the chain is not free, then none of the resulting willed choices can be free.[11] By stating that acts of the will occur without any cause at all is to render human choice random, and if human choices are made randomly it is difficult to establish any ethical value to them.

The following is my speculative chain, influenced by Edward’s idea of how the human will works:

God would freely and by choice give human beings within their nature consciousness and self-awareness, an understanding that they have identity as an individual. There would be in a sense significant, yet limited freedom present within the human consciousness to have an understanding of personal identity, apart from every other individual entity, but this in itself would not be free will or choice, and would not be libertarian free will.[12] Human choice would be caused by the human nature which has consciousness and from that motives and desires. Human nature and consciousness does not choose to be as it is, but was created by God, and has been corrupt since the fall of humanity. From consciousness and self-awareness, human beings would develop motives and desires, and eventually make limited free will choices. This a reasonable explanation that does not use a vicious regress in trying to explain that every human choice made through libertarian free will is made by a previous choice, and so on. It must be noted that God would be the primary cause of human actions, while human beings (and angelic beings at times) would be the secondary cause of human actions. The concept of human beings as a secondary cause of actions is essential to the idea of compatibilism or soft determinism.

Craig and the First Cause

In The First Cause argument article on this blog I discussed William Lane Craig’s understanding of first cause.

He presents the kalam cosmological argument.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite.
2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successiveaddition.
2.21 A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
2.22 The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.[13]

Premise 1 deduces that something cannot come from nothing, and that the material universe is not self-caused.[14] Premise 2 therefore states that the universe began and 2.1 deduces that the actual infinite is impossible. An actual infinite cannot exist because if there was an infinite, limitless past, we would never have arrived at the present. Therefore 2.11 is correct, as we cannot have an actual infinite (past), nor can we have an infinite temporal regress as described in 2.12, because that would equal an actual infinite as Craig would put it. 2.13 is therefore reasonable and rather than reality consisting of an infinite past, it consists of a finite past that had a beginning.

With 2.21, Craig notes that one cannot have an actual infinite collection of things by simple addition. This means that a proposed infinite past could not be reached as the formation of an actual infinite would not be reached whether one proceeds to or from infinity.[15] The events described in 2.2 would therefore be finite and not infinite in agreement with 2.23. Premise 3 concludes that the universe has a cause.

If matter and the universe is eternal and therefore unlimited in time, I have not read a convincing explanation that explains how we could arrive at our present state, and indeed have a future. From the first cause argument I would deduce that the universe has a cause and this cause is an infinite, omnipotent being who has always existed beyond time and matter, and created time and matter. I realize that for the finite human mind this type of creator or God cannot be completely comprehended, only apprehended to a point, but it seems that the idea of first cause is not contradictory where as a vicious regress associated with an infinite temporal regress of events is very problematic because neither the present or future would be realized because of an unlimited past.

Joseph Smith and Gods

Joseph Smith the founder of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints writes that there is a plurality of gods. Please note, this is not an attack against the Church, or the people within it, but simply a review of a theological point. I am not interested in attacking in a militant fashion any religious or philosophical group. I am focused on reviewing ideas in order to grow in my understanding and to perhaps help others in an understanding of the Biblical God. I think the topics I discuss are already controversial enough and so there is no need to be militant as well! However, I firmly believe in taking a stand for the truth.

Smith preached on June 16,1844, eleven days before his death, that a plurality of Gods existed and that the head God organized the heavens and the earth.[16] Smith explains that the idea of the God of the Christian Trinity is a strange one.[17] He also states that the Bible supports the idea of the plurality of Gods.[18] The founder of the Latter-day Saints reasons that if Jesus Christ had a Father, that God the Father would have a Father as well. This concept would create an infinite regression of Father Gods.[19] This established a vicious regress within the Latter-day Saints theology concerning God.

The Walter Martin website has some interesting comments on this view. Martin first points out that the Bible in Isaiah, clearly states that there is just one God in Chapters 43:10-11, 44:6, 8; 45:5, and 21–22.[20] Martin also mentions that the Lord is called one Lord in Deuteronomy 6:4.[21] Martin further explains that others are called god in the Bible such as Moses to Pharaoh in Exodus 7:1, but this is a metaphorical use and is not claiming that Moses is the one and only true God.[22] In Psalm 82 and John 10:34, the judges according to Martin are not intrinsic deity, but became mighty ones like Gods in the eyes of the people. In Psalm 82 and John 10:34 the judges are shown to be sinful men that were in no way to be confused with the God of the Bible in nature.[23] The Bible in both the Hebrew Bible and New Testament is not only stating that there is only one true God to worship, but that there is only one God in existence period.

I am not going to heavily discuss Trinitarian theology within this article, but I shall state that it is believed within Christianity that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons of one, substance, nature and essence, and therefore are not three eternal Gods, but one eternal God. In Hebrews 1:3, the Son is called the exact representation of God’s nature, and in Acts 5:3-4 the Holy Spirit is called God. Philip Edgcume Hughes writes that in Hebrews 1:3, the Greek word translated “nature” denotes the very essence of God. Christ is the representation of the Father and shares the same substance as God.[24] So whatever distinctions can be drawn concerning the Father and Son, Biblically it must be concluded that from Hebrews 1:3 they are of the same nature (υποστασεως )[25] and substance. They are not two Gods, but two distinctions within one God, and the Holy Spirit from Acts 5 is also shown to be God sharing in the same nature and substance as the Father and Son. Jesus Christ as both God and man has a human body, but shares the same spiritual substance as the Father and Holy Spirit.

Matthew J. Slick notes that the Latter-day Saints' idea of Gods, which originated with Joseph Smith, teaches an infinite regression of causes.[26] Each God came into existence from a previous God, and this has gone on in an infinite past.[27] There cannot be an infinite regression of Gods because this would require an infinite amount of time which would not allow us to arrive at the present. In contrast the idea of the Christian Trinity is that God has always existed and existed prior to time and therefore God has not lived for an infinite amount of time. God created time, but existed in a timeless state prior to the creation of time and matter. Mary Kochan mentions the same problem with the Latter-day Saints' concept and states that with an infinite regression of Gods there is no way to get to the present and that time had to have a beginning in order for the present to exist.[28]

It appears the Smith’s notion of a plurality of Gods influenced the Latter-day Saints' theology which leads to infinite regression, but it is a contradictory view that features a vicious regress.

[1] Blackburn (1996: 324).[2] Blackburn (1996: 324).[3] Blackburn (1996: 324).[4] Tolhurst (1996: 835).[5] Tolhurst (1996: 835).[6] Bradley (1996: 371).[7] Bradley (1996: 371).[8] Bradley (1996: 371).[9] Bradley (1996: 372).[10] Edwards (1754)(2006: 2.1: 1-2).[11] Edwards (1754)(2006: 2.1: 2).[12] Libertarian free will is the idea that a person is able to perform another action in the place of one that has been committed. This action cannot be predetermined by any circumstance or desire.[13] Craig (1991)(2006: 2).[14] Craig (1991)(2006: 12).[15] Craig (1991)(2006: 7).[16] Smith (1844)(2006: 1).[17] Smith (1844)(2006: 1).[18] Smith (1844)(2006: 1).[19] Smith (1844)(2006: 1).[20] Martin (2006: 1).[21] Martin (2006: 1).[22] Martin (2006: 1).[23] Martin (2006: 1).[24] Hughes (1990: 43-44).[25] The Greek New Testament (1993: 741).[26] Slick (2006: 1).[27] Slick (2006: 1).[28] Kochan (2002: 1).

---

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) 'First Cause Argument', in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) ‘Reductio ad Absurdum’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) ‘Regress’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

BOWMAN, ROBERT M. (1990) Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

BRADLEY, RAYMOND D. (1996) ‘Infinite Regress Argument’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

BROWNING, W. R. F. (1997) 'Alpha', in Oxford Dictionary of The Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.

CRAIG, WILLIAM LANE, (1991)(2006) ‘The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe’,Truth: A Journal of Modern Thought 3 (1991) 85-96.
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html pp. 1-18.

CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1729)(2006) Sovereignty of God, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University. http://edwards.yale.edu/archive/documents/page?document_id=10817&search_id=&source_type=edited&pagenumber=1 

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1731-1733)(2006) Law of Nature, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1754)(2006) Freedom of the Will, Flower Mound, Texas.http://www.jonathanedwards.com

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

FRANKE, JOHN R. (2005) The Character of Theology, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids. 

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

FOULKES, FRANCIS (1989) Ephesians, Grand Rapids, Inter-Varsity Press.

GEISLER, N.L. (1996) ‘Freedom, Free Will, and Determinism’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books. 

GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI and CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.

GIJSBERS, VICTOR, (2006) ‘Theistic Arguments: First Cause’http://positiveatheism.org/faq/firstcause.htm pp. 1-2. 

HUGHES, P. E. (1990) A Commentary On The Epistle To The Hebrews, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

HUGHES, P. E. (1996) ‘Grace’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books. 

KEOHANE, JONATHAN, (1997) ‘Big Bang Theory’ http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/971108a.html p. 1.

KOCHAN, MARY (2002) 'Drawing the Line for Mormons - A Closer Look at the LDS Church', Powell River, B.C., Catholic Information Resource Center. http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0112.html

KREEFT, PETER, (2006) ‘The First Cause Argument’ excerpted from Fundamentals of Faith  http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0168.html pp. 1-5.

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy).

MARTIN, WALTER (2006) 'The Mormon Doctrine of God', San Juan Capistrano, Walter Martin.org. http://www.waltermartin.org/mormon.html#mormdoc

MOUNCE, R.H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

MOUNCE, R.H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

REED, HOLLY (2004) ‘Jonathan Edwards’, in The Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Modern Western Theology, Boston, The Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Modern Western Theology. 

SCHRECK, ALAN (1984) Catholic and Christian, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Servant Books.

SKLAR, LAWRENCE, (1996) ‘Philosophy of Science’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

SLICK, MATTHEW J. (2006) A logical proof that Mormonism is false, Meridian, Idaho, Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. http://www.carm.org/lds/infinity.htm

SMITH, JOSEPH (1844)(2006) ‘Sermon by the Prophet-The Christian Godhead-Plurality of Gods’, History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473-479. http://www.utlm.org

STORMS, SAM (2006) 'Jonathan Edwards on the Will', Kansas City, Missouri. Enjoying God Ministries. Enjoyinggodministries.com http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article.asp?id=368 

TCHIVIDJIAN, W. TULLIAN, (2001) ‘Reflections on Jonathan Edwards’ View of Free Will, in IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 3, Number 51, December 17 to December 23, Fern Park, Florida, IIIM Magazine Online.

THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (1993), Munster, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, United Bible Societies.

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

TOLHURST, WILLIAM (1996) 'Vicious Regress', in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.