In this video, I cover the argument for the existence of God from composition, first given by Plotinus and more recently developed by Edward Feser.
NOTES
- The things of our experience are composites
- Everything we see has parts
- The things of our experience are composites (composed of parts)
- The existence of a composite depends on the existence and arrangement of the part
- What is the relation of the whole to its parts?
- What is the relation of the book to its pages/cover?
- The book depends on its parts and their arrangement for its existence
- Not temporal dependence
- The body exists concurrently with the parts
- The existence of the whole depends on the existence and arrangement of the part
- What is the relation of the whole to its parts?
- The existence and arrangement of the parts require a cause(s)
- The paper is made up of parts itself and requires a certain temperature to exist in order to not burn up
- That is to say that the parts themselves require causes
- The cause(s) of the parts and their arrangement can't be the composite
- What could be that cause(s)?
- Can't be the whole
- S1: vicious circle
- The cause(s) of the parts and their arrangement can't ultimately be a composite
- It could be something else with parts, but then we'd have the same problem
- What is causing those parts to exist and be arranged as such?
- If we keep pointing to things with parts, then we'll never have any causality at all
- It'll be collection of parts A borrowing causality from collection of parts B borrowing from C, but nobody actually has the causality in the first place
- S1: vicious regress
- So, the ultimate cause of the parts and their arrangement must be something completely simple
- There can only be one simple thing
- For two simple things to be different, one would have to have a feature the other lacks
- To have a feature is to be composed
- So, at least one of them will not be simple
- So, everything is caused by one simple thing
- O1: law of nature
- R1: either
- Law of nature could be something not real
- Mathematical description of what happens
- In this case, it has no causal power, it just describes
- Law of nature could be something real
- It just part of the composite
- What combines the natural law with the parts?
- Feser
- Composite of A and B
- Natural law L combines them
- Why is A and B governed by L rather than by some other law?
- A-B-L becomes a new composite we must explain
- Feser
- Law of nature could be something not real
- R1: either
- O2: brute fact
- R1: the simple cause is an explanation and there is no question-begging reason to reject it, so we can't just renounce it
Further Reading
Mind, Matter, and Nature: A Thomistic Proposal for the Philosophy of Mind" by James Madden
Leave a Reply