Philosophy of Religion

The Argument from Composition

by Leave a Comment

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

  1. The things of our experience are composites
    • Everything we see has parts
    • The things of our experience are composites (composed of parts)
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. So, the ultimate cause of the parts and their arrangement must be something completely simple
  7. There can only be one simple thing
    1. For two simple things to be different, one would have to have a feature the other lacks
    2. To have a feature is to be composed
    3. So, at least one of them will not be simple
  8. 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
  • 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

Does God exist? The Argument from Meaning

by Leave a Comment

Does God exist? This video argues that if our lives are truly meaningful and have purpose, God must exist. It further tries to give us the intuition that life is meaningful and does have purpose.

NOTES

  1. Life has meaning/purpose
  2. A thing cannot have meaning/purpose unless it was made by an intelligent agent with that intended meaning/purpose
  3. So, we were created by an intelligent agent

Further Reading

Does quantum mechanics provide a counterexample to the law of causality?

by Leave a Comment

In this video, I consider the claim that quantum field theories show particles can come into existence randomly without cause, and that this is a counterexample to the law of causality.

NOTES

Objections to Law of Causality from Quantum Mechanics

  • Problem 1: nothing is there to cause virtual particles to appear
    1. These particles are coming out of a vacuum
    2. A vacuum is nothing
    3. So, there is no cause
    • O1: quantum vacuum isn't nothing
    • O2: physical laws aren't nothing
    • O3: mathematical equations can't pick up causation
  • Problem 2: the particles appear randomly
    • O1: A cause can cause something indeterminately, so that's not a problem
    • O2: hidden variable theory

Further Reading

Law of Causality: Imagination Objection

by Leave a Comment

The Law of Causality states that whatever begins to exist requires a cause (or, alternatively, no potential can be actualized unless something already actual actualizes it). In this video, I look at David Hume's objection to the Law of Causality.

NOTES

Hume's Imagination Objection to Law of Causality

  1. What is imaginable is possible
  2. We can imagine an object beginning to exist without also imagining its cause
  3. So, an object can begin to exist without a cause
  • R1: we conceived of the pterodactyl beginning to exist w/o conceiving of its cause at the same time, which is not the same as conceiving of the pterodactyl beginning to exist without a cause
  • R2 (GEM Anscombe):
    • How do you know you're picturing the pterodactyl coming into existence?
    • Maybe, this is what you pictured:
      • pterodactyl at location A
      • Teleports to location B like an alpha particle
      • You are picturing the second part of that
    • Maybe also
      • pterodactyl at location A
      • Particles ooze over like gas
      • Manifest at location B
      • You see the second part of that
    • So, this isn't a proof you can imagine a pterodactyl coming into existence without a cause
    • O1: pterodactyls don't come to be in a place by teleporting like alpha particles or gas
      • R1: they don't appear uncaused either
        • I.e., this objection appeals to the nature of pterodactyls
          • If we're allowed to do that, then the game is up
          • By nature, pterodactyls appear by parents
          • They don't appear causeless
  • R3: empirically supported

Further Reading

Does God exist? The Argument from Change

by Leave a Comment

In this video, I explore the argument for God's existence from the phenomenon of change.

NOTES

  1. Change is real
  2. Change is the actualization of a potential

A1: Parmenides' Paradox

  1. A thing cannot actualize itself
  1. There can't be an infinite series of actualizers
  1. So, a purely actual actualizer must exist
  2. This thing of pure actuality we call God

Further Reading

Is change impossible? Parmenides’ Paradox

by 1 Comment

Parmenides posed a paradox that purported to show change is impossible. How can this be since we see change everywhere?

NOTES

Parmenides' Paradox of Change

  1. Something can't come from nothing
  2. Change is the bringing about of something from nothing
  3. So, change is impossible
    • O1: empirical observation
      • R1: it's an illusion
        • O1: the illusion is really changing, so some change must be real
    • O2: the argument attempt to *change* your mind
    • O3: change as the actualization of a potential
      • Change is the actualization of a potential
      • So, something is not coming from nothing

Further Reading

Problem of Evil and the Moral Argument

by Leave a Comment

The Problem of Evil is intended to show that God does not exist, but interestingly enough one of the premises it rests on--indeed, the most surprising one--can be used to prove the exact opposite: the premise that "Evil exists." How can the existence of evil show God exists? Is there a way to avoid this result?

NOTES

The Moral Argument for the Existence of God

  1. If evil exists, then an objective, obligatory standard of being exists
    • A1: analytic truth
  2. If it is obligatory, it was designed by an intelligent agent
    • A1: we are not obliged to standards from non-persons
    • A2: the concept of being wrong assumes the standard was an intentional creation
  3. If it is obligatory and designed by an intelligent agent, that intelligent agent was a creator that endued the obligation
    • A1: avoids the externalist-only regress (and the internalist-only lack of motivation)
  4. So, if evil exists, an intelligent creator exists
  5. Evil exists
    • A1: claimed in the Problem of Evil
      • O1: give up the claim from the Problem of Evil
        • R1: special pleading
      • O2: "If God existed, then this would have been evil."
        • R1: impossible counterfactual
  6. So, an intelligent creator (God) exists
  • O1: entails that atheists can't be moral or that atheists can't have an ethical system
    • R1: this is an argument about what makes the moral system true, not what needs to be believed to be moral or have an ethical system

Further Reading

My version of this argument is similar to that found in Robert Adams, Finite and Infinite Goods, though I think an amalgam of DCT and Aristotelian natures is the most convincing grounding of morality.