Monday, May 22, 2017


I must apologize from the beginning for the terminology. Non-contingency merely means that something or someone does not depend on another cause for its existence. Another way of putting – the first cause cannot have a cause. This cause is not dependent on another cause. Instead, it is self-existing and has always existed.

Let’s now take an overview of the proof:

PREMISE #1: Something exists. 

PREMISE #2: Everything that exists either has a cause (is dependent on something else) or doesn’t have a cause.

PREMISE #3: What requires a cause depends upon what doesn’t require a cause for its existence.

CONCLUSION: Something or Someone exists without a cause.

PREMISE #1 is easy to prove. Our senses prove existence. Besides, it is impossible to deny existence without first affirming it. To say that “nothing exists” denies this denial. Why? To say “nothing exists” requires something to exist – a thought, at least – and this contradicts the assertion that “nothing exists.”

PREMISE #2 is simply a logical statement. It states either “A” or not “A.” This is either hard or impossible to refute.

PREMISE #3 requires a little more work. It claims that there must be an adequate cause, which is uncaused and causes everything that we observe in this universe – all contingent or dependent reality.

Well, why must there be something that is uncaused? If everything requires a cause, then there would be an infinite regress of unending causes and this would entail an infinite amount of time – a logical impossibility. Why? Because there would be an infinite number of years extending into the past! Therefore, to ever arrive in the present, an infinite number of years would have to be accomplished – a logical impossibility.

If time, then, is not infinite, then an infinite regress of causation cannot exist. Besides, if science has concluded that the universe is only 14 billion years old, then temporal causation must also be limited by these years and cannot be infinite.

Besides, any effect requires a sufficient cause(s). However, if there is an infinite regress of causes, there can never be a sufficient cause(s).  Cause (or explanation) X is never adequate to explain any phenomena because cause X requires the prior cause W, which requires its own cause V, ad infinitum (to infinity), implying that there is never an adequate explanation or any ultimate answer.

Nor can we claim that contingent (caused) things spring into existence without a cause. For one thing, we haven’t observed this. For another, the necessary assumption of science is that there are causes for phenomena. To claim that there are uncaused phenomena is to claim that certain observed phenomena are beyond understanding.

CONCLUSION: A non-contingent, uncaused Causer must exist. Besides, this Causer must be sufficient to account for the various phenomena – the laws of science, fine-tuning of the universe, life, consciousness, freewill…

If there are other possibilities, I am not aware of them. Admittedly, we are discussing things about which we know little. However, based upon the little we do know – this reasoning – it would appear that there must be an eternally existing uncaused First Cause.

No comments:

Post a Comment