An invalid contingency argument on SEP

-
Bruce Reichenbach wrote the SEP article on cosmological arguments.  SEP articles are, I believe, peer-reviewed, and so we shouldn't expect them to contain invalid arguments.  This one does, however.  Here it is:

(1) A contingent being (a being such that if it exists, it could have not-existed or could cease to exist) exists.

(2) This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence.

(3) The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.

(4) What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.

(5) Contingent beings alone cannot provide a completely adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.

(6) Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.

(7) Therefore, a necessary being (a being such that if it exists, it cannot not-exist) exists.

(8) The universe is contingent.

(9) Therefore, the necessary being is something other than the universe.

What makes this argument invalid is pretty easy to see:  In step (5), there is talk of a "completely adequate" account or explanation, but never in previous steps.  So it can't be used to infer (6) as intended.  This can be easily fixed by changing step (2), but I'm still alarmed by the fact that a peer-reviewed article on SEP is invalid.

There are a couple of other anomalies which also trouble me.  For instance, step (3) is actually superfluous to the argument.  And step (4) is pretty close to being superfluous too, not required so long as (5) is suitably adjusted.  Finally, steps (1) and (8) could be combined for brevity.

The resulting argument would go something like this:

(10)  The universe exists and is a contingent being.  [Replaces (1) and (8).]

(11)  Its existence has a completely adequate explanation or causal account.  [Replaces (2).]

(12)  An explanation or causal account of the existence of a contingent being, such that all the existing beings involved are likewise contingent, isn't completely adequate.  [Replaces (5).]

(13)  Therefore, a necessary being, which is not itself the universe, exists, and is involved in a completely adequate explanation or causal account of the universe's existence.  [Replaces (6), (7), and (9).]

The above argument has the virtues of being shorter, clearer, and---most importantly---valid.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

James Anderson and non-contradiction

-
Dr. James Anderson has recently completed, with Greg Welty, the forthcoming paper "The Lord of Non-Contradiction," in which he argues for the existence of God from the laws of logic. We may divide the argument into two portions, the first where he holds that there is a necessarily existent mind, and the second that such a mind must be the mind of God. His summary of the first part of the argument proceeds thusly: "The laws of logic are necessary truths about truths; they are necessarily true propositions. Propositions are real entities, but cannot be physical entities; they are essentially thoughts. So the laws of logic are necessarily true thoughts. Since they are true in every possible world, they must exist in every possible world. But if there are necessarily existent thoughts, there must be a necessarily existent mind" (p20). Of course this is a summary only, and in the full paper each step in this argument is carefully defended with sub-arguments. For my o
Read more

Why did God want Jesus to suffer?

-
Christians face an interesting theological challenge regarding the crucifixion of Jesus, insofar as we want to know why Jesus had to suffer in order to save the faithful. God, being omnipotent, appears to have the power to save the faithful, regardless of whether he also sent Jesus to suffer on the cross. In order to explain why it was better for him to do so, we might be tempted to invoke the notion of justice. However, if we want to appeal to God's favorite system of justice to explain why Jesus had to suffer, then we must know why that system is ultimately good for us. Since we do not in fact know how God's rules of cosmic justice are ultimately good for us, then no appeal to those rules will serve as a satisfactory explanation.
Read more

Some comments on Brian Knapp's post

-
Unfortunately it has become somewhat common for atheists to deny that they have any burden of proof in religious debates. While this may sometimes be true in some limited sense, I find it problematic for at least three reasons: First, it seems quite evident that many of the atheists who employ this tactic are in fact positive atheists, which is to say that they take the assertive position that there is no God, rather than the weaker position of unbelief in the existence of God. Now, it may be more interesting to talk about the justification for theism rather than that for positive atheism, but nevertheless the position of the nonexistence of God does indeed require some justification, and so anyone defending that position certainly has a burden of proof in that regard. Second, even a negative atheist has basic obligations to facilitate communication. In any two-way conversation, each party shares some measure of responsibility not just for communicating clearly, but also for assi
Read more