I get what you’re saying. If reality can’t explain itself, but God can explain himself, then he would at least be one thing that would satisfy the argument. I don’t know if either is true or not, though (and strongly suspect the latter isn’t) and until they’re demonstrated, I’m back at square one.
1 Like
True, but it’s the only part of the premise that mentions “can be explained by itself”, and it’s the only thing that could be invoked to produce the conclusion that the cause of the universe must be something that explains itself. How else could we arrive there? That conclusion is not a real consequence of any of the premises. Why does what explains the universe need to be explained by itself?
Another problem is that identifying that self-explained explanation as “God” is a further unjustified leap.
It could either be explained by itself, or by something else. If it is explained by something else, then the argument (specifically premise 1) implies an infinite regress of explanations.
Now, you are pointing out that there is a potential missing piece in the argument (i.e. to obtain point 5), which is whether one thinks an infinite regress of explanations is allowed or not. If yes, then it is possible that the Designer would also need an explanation, which would also need an explanation. Note that in this scenario, as long as premisses 1) and 3) are still true, that would not affect the need for a Designer. If the universe is not self-explanatory, then we would still need to explain it somehow.
If you do not think an infinite regress of explanation is allowed, then the Designer would have to be self-explanatory. This is consistent with what classical theists actually think.
Note that I haven’t used the word “God” in my argument. I agree that the argument by itself doesn’t prove the existence of God as traditionally conceived.
2 Likes
Not exactly. It implies at least one more level of explanation. It may be that there’s an explanation that explains itself at some level in the chain. You just have no justification for saying that the level you point to is that level. Maybe the Designer had a Designer-2, and that Designer-2 had a Designer-3, but the Designer-3 doesn’t need to be explained. Still, there’s also no reason a priori to rule out an infinite regress either.
You used the word “Designer”. There’s no reason to suppose that the unexplained explanation (if any) should be called a designer either. Nor is there reason to suppose that the explanation of the universe, whether that explanation needs an explanation or not, should be called a designer. That word has a meaning that is nowhere supported by the argument.
Yes, you are right. There could be 3 designers, only one of which doesn’t need to be explained. But the point of the argument more that at least one such designer exists.
One other way to put it (which also argues against the idea of infinite regress) is that the existence of the infinite regress itself needs to be explained by something which is self-explanatory.
OK, I apologize. I’m only using the word designer because that’s how the book originally uses it. In more technical literature usually a term like “Necessary being” is used.
1 Like
If that’s the point of the argument, shouldn’t the argument be stated differently? And you do need that additional premise that an infinite regress is not allowed. Proposing that an infinite regress itself needs an explanation (a meta-explanation, really) is yet another premise. It’s not an argument.
Still an unwarranted assumption, that the necessary final explanation is a being. That’s what one would call “sneaking closer to God”.
Yeah, you’re right that the argument is not complete in the way that premise 5 is written. So let’s revise it. (After all, it was meant to be a rough statement, and I’m not a professional philosopher.)
Updated argument
- Everything requires an explanation. (Also known as the Principle of Sufficient Reason)
- Everything can be explained either by itself, or by something else
- The universe cannot be explained by itself.
- (From 2, 3) Therefore, the universe must be explained by something else, which we shall call E.
- (From 1) If E is explained by something else, this implies an infinite regress of explanations.
- An infinite regress of explanations is insufficient to explain something.
- (From 5, 6) Therefore, E cannot be explained by something else.
- (From 2, 7) Therefore, E is explained by itself.
EDIT: longer, more detailed version of premise 5:
5’. If E is explained by something else (call it E2), then (from 1, 2) E2 must be either be explained by something else or itself, which in the former case would imply that it has to be explained by something else (call it E3), ad infinitum.
In philosophy, being means the existence of a thing. Anything that exists has being.
2 Likes
This seems to be a premise that incorporates a mini-syllogism, and the conclusion of that syllogism doesn’t follow from the premise
I think you have confused a quality, being or existence, with the name of a thing, a being. Wikipedia is referring to the former. Nobody would call a rock “a being”, though it does have being.
.
Sure, one could spell out premise 5 in more detail:
If E is explained by something else (call it E2), then (from 1, 2) E2 must be either be explained by something else or itself, which in the former case would imply that it has to be explained by something else (call it E3), ad infinitum.
However, I think we are at the point where both of us agree what the thrust of the argument is.
Well, this is just arguing semantics at this point. I’ve already admitted that the argument at this point doesn’t give you a traditional God. There is no need to accuse me of “sneaking in God.” We can be honest to each other intellectually. I’ve already demonstrated this by conceding that my original formulation of the argument has some issues, and attempted to repair it.
More extensive versions of the argument invoke additional premises to justify why the Necessary Explanation is “immutable, eternal, immaterial, incorporeal, perfect, omnipotent, fully good, intelligent, and omniscient” but I’m not sufficiently familiar with them to recap that part of the argument here.
2 Likes
Maybe, though you have yet to articulate the argument without unstated premises.
I’m just saying that you can’t end with anything that has any of the characteristics of a traditional God except for being an uncaused cause. Nothing else about the nature of that uncaused cause follows.
The updated argument, I believe, sufficiently captures all the non-trivial premises. I think that’s what’s important.
I completely agree with you regarding the argument in the form that I’ve written here. This is partially why no theist relies on a single argument to prove the existence of God.
2 Likes
I disagree. Premise 5 still incorporates a non sequitur.
Good to hear. Are the other arguments equally faulty?
You’ve got to change your tone @John_Harshman if you want to keep engaging with me here. I’ve tried my best to be charitable, non-snarky, patient, and admit any mistakes. Otherwise we are done.
2 Likes
Good enough. I mean to say that this argument is both a faulty argument and not an argument for God. I wonder if the other arguments are similar in one or both of those respects.
This book is horrible. @Patrick I’ve recommended serious atheist scholarship to you numerous times. Draper, Mackie, Oppy, Wielenberg, etc… but you keep pushing this new atheist type crap. Why?
1 Like
I’m surprised you think it is a faulty argument, given that we already agree that other than denying premises 1 or 3 (or some cases 6), it will necessitate the existence of an Unexplained Explanation that is not the universe itself. There is no way to escape that conclusion, unless you have some other objection up your sleeve. As you said in the other thread, the way I’ve written out the argument is “close enough”.
1 Like
Both worldviews, Theism and naturalism, are both composed of brute facts. Both start with one. Theism, god. Naturalism, the universe.
2 Likes
But we don’t agree, quite. I suppose you just need to add that E might actually be at the end of a finite chain of explanations, none of which is E. I had missed premise 6. No, I don’t think your argument is close enough.
Atheism has brute facts too. It’s an inescapable aspect of reality.
2 Likes
Such as?