On the Contingency Argument for God

The contingency argument is generally considered to be the most sophisticated of the cosmological proofs for the existence of a god. Its structure is similar to the causal argument, but it attempts to establish the existence of a "necessary being" [which is said to be required by the fact that everything else is contingent on something else] rather than a first cause....
 
While we do observe causal dependency of specific entities within the universe, we do not observe a similar dependency with regard to matter itself. We do not observe the creation or annihilation of matter, so the claim that the universe as a whole is contingent cannot be supported by factual evidence. On the contrary, empirical evidence points to matter as a metaphysical primary, which cuts the ground from under any attempt to establish the contingency of the universe by empirical means....

Finally we should mention the underlying dogma of the contingency argument: the so-called "principle of sufficient reason." According to this principle, there must be a sufficient reason, an explanation, for the existence of everything. Many theists accept this principle as axiomatic, claiming that it is an essential ingredient of rationality. But nothing could be further from the truth. The "principle of sufficient reason" is false; not everything requires an explanation. As repeatedly emphasized, the natural universe sets the context in which explanation is possible, so the the concept of explanation cannot legitimately be extended to the universe as a whole. Even the advocate of sufficient reason cannot adhere to this principle consistently: after applying it to the universe, the theist attempts to offer god as an exception to the principle, usually under the guise that god is his own sufficient reason for existing. But if god can be his own sufficient reason, there is no basis on which to argue that the universe cannot likewise be its own sufficient reason, in which case there is no need to posit god in the first place.

--George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God, 1974

Comments

  1. I'll have to re-read the whole section to understand better what Smith means by "matter", but from a physics standpoint the statement "We do not observe the creation or annihilation of matter" does not agree with physics knowledge for the past century (if we understand "matter" as atoms and subatomic particles). The sun and any "young" star is constantly creating new matter. Conversely, we've known about radioactive decay since 1907.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Impossibility of Illogical Thought

Is He Having a Laugh?

Happy Passover, 2024