God

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

Burden of Proof and the Problem of Evil

by Leave a Comment

In a recent video, I examined the Problem of Evil: How could a good God allow evil to exist? The argument is as follows:

  1. If God existed, He could prevent evil because He is all-powerful and all-knowing
  2. If God existed, He would prevent evil because He is all-good
  3. So, if God existed, evil would not exist
  4. But, evil exists
  5. So, God doesn’t exist

Theists typically object to premise (2) and in the video, I enumerated four reasons an all-good God could possibly allow evil. An interesting thing to note, however, is that I need not have done so in order to show the Problem of Evil fails because I didn’t have the ‘burden of proof.’

What is the ‘burden of proof’?

The ‘burden of proof’ is the obligation for proving why things are the way they are. In general, the burden of proof rests on whoever is making the claim. For example, let’s say Allen believes in aliens and Denise denies aliens exist (personally, I have no opinion on this matter). Denise says, “Aliens can’t exist: no one has ever seen one!” Allen points out, “That doesn’t prove anything. We’ve never seen dark matter, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.” Notice that Allen hasn’t proved that aliens exist, but he doesn’t need to. He only needs to show Denise hasn’t proven her claim.

Say Denise then gives Allen a reason. “Well, we should expect they would have made contact.” Notice, however, that this is yet another claim, so once again Denise shoulders the burden of proof, this time for the new claim (this will continue until Denise finds an acceptable claim to support the reasons she has given). So, Allen could ask, “Why believe aliens should have contacted us?” Again, Allen hasn’t proved we should not expect that aliens would have contacted us already. If he wants to make his point even stronger he can provide a reason why we shouldn’t. Maybe he could say, “An alien species might see that we don’t like outsiders.” This might be a good reason, in which case Allen’s point is all the more reinforced. However, if it isn’t, this doesn’t mean anything for Denise’s argument. She still has failed to make her case.

Who has the burden of proof in the Problem of Evil?

In the case of the Problem of Evil, the claim is being made: “God cannot exist because an all-good God wouldn’t allow evil.” For that reason, the burden of proof is on the atheist to show God could have no reason for allowing evil. After all, a being that is all-good would certainly not commit evil himself, but it is not obvious that he wouldn’t allow evil at all.

Let’s say the atheist gives us a reason: “When a person could prevent an evil but doesn’t we think that person is not good, so God would not be good if He were to allow evil.” Now we have a reason, but notice this reason is also subject to criticism. So, for example, we could point out that this isn’t always true. I might allow my son to procrastinate studying and fail a test in order for him to learn that there are consequences for irresponsibility. Or, more to the point, we might point out that God is an infinite intelligence, so He might have reasons for allowing evil that we don’t know.

Why give reasons?

Notice, however, that we still don’t need to give any reasons. It is sufficient to point out that the atheist’s argument doesn’t show God couldn’t allow evil. In fact, in this case it might be that it’s impossible to give the reasons God allows evil. First of all, it might be beyond our ken to understand. Human psychology hasn’t come far enough along to show us why we do everything we do, certainly we shouldn’t expect to understand why God does everything He does. If God were easy to understand, He wouldn’t be God. Second, God may have many reasons for allowing evil, and it may be that not every reason applies to every evil. So, for example, I might allow my son to surf a wave that scares him a little bit because it will develop courage in him. This is a different reason than why I let him fail the test. God might have an infinite number of reasons and expecting a silver bullet-type response is unrealistic. Finally, God might have some good purpose for hiding His reasons.

However, we might still give some possible reasons, as I do in the video, to make the case even more convincing. If these reasons fail, then nothing is lost. It has still been shown that the atheist has not provided sufficient justification for the claim that God couldn’t have any reasons for allowing evil.

Of course, ultimately the theist will not be satisfied with defending God against accusations of being an impossible being. She will want to go further and say God exists, and this is a claim that gives the theist the burden of proof for showing why we should believe this. The point here is that she need not prove this in the discussion of the Problem of Evil because here she doesn’t shoulder the burden of proof.