Phil Essay 1
Phil Essay 1
Phil Essay 1
Samadi
2. Hence an event A must have as cause some event B, which in turn must have a cause C,
3. But if there is no end to this backward progression of causes, the progression will be
infinite. (P2)
4. In the opinion of those who use this argument, an infinite series of actual events is
5. Hence there must be a first cause, and this first cause is God, the initiator of all change
in the universe. (Does God Exist) (C2) – derived from C1, P2 and P3
Philosopher X is objecting to the second premise (P2) proposed in his/her first argument, which
reads as follows:
‘But if there is no end to this backward progression of causes, the progression will be
infinite.’ (P2)
Philosopher X is objective to the claim that there is an infinite series of causation of events.
He/she state that unbeknownst to us, some events or causes in our universe may not have had
a posterior event that caused it to occur. He/she suggest that by claiming to state that a
preexisting events, hence we are evading the possibility that an event could have been self-
1
caused. This is clearly depicted in Philosopher X’s primary objective statement of; ‘If the
principle is assumed, it is surely incongruous to postulate a first cause as a way of escaping from
the coils of an infinite series’. Philosopher X continues to support his/her above objection by
questioning whether God can be the only self-caused being, and if the world itself could
potentially be self-caused as well. In essence, he/her is being objective to the claim that only
one thing/being can be self-caused. He/her is proposing the notion that there could very well
exist other things/beings that are self-caused. This is apparent in his/her statement as follows:
‘But if God transcending the world can be self-caused, why cannot the world itself be self-
caused?’. His/hers questioning of the second premise causes a ripple effect which in my
‘Hence there must be a first cause, and this first cause is God, the initiator of all change
in the universe.’ (Does God Exist) (C2) – derived from C1, P2 and P3
Part 3: (A)
I believe that Philosopher X’s objection to his/her initial argument in passage one is valid and
plausible. He/she demonstrates how there could be a flaw in premise two, as not every event
has to have been caused by a prior, as well as stating that there may very well exist
(unbeknownst to us) other beings (other than God) that are self-caused. In my perspective,
Philosopher X raises a plausible objection towards the cosmological argument in its second
His/hers objection indicates the possibility that a series of events can be uncaused, which
would then make one of the premises in the cosmological argument implausible, leaving the
2
cosmological argument to be unsound. Although Philosopher X does not provide an alternative
philosophical theory backing up his/hers objection, the objection itself provides enough of a
query to raise a question about the validity of the premises of the cosmological argument,
‘There must exist the necessary being that is the cause of all contingent being’,
Part 3: (B)
As Philosopher X him/herself does significantly well in objecting to the second premise, whilst
also objecting to other premises through the objection of the second premise, I believe it to
only be natural to object against the conclusion of Philosopher X’s original argument as a
‘Hence there must be a first cause, and this first cause is God, the initiator of all change
in the universe.’ (Does God Exist) (C2) – derived from C1, P2 and P3
Off the bat, I can object to the claim that ‘God’ is the initiator of all change in the universe. As
Philosopher X demonstrated above by objecting to premise two, there may very well be other
things/beings that are self-caused. By applying this same logic, I could claim to believe that
there are also other things/beings that are the initiator of change in the universe. The downside
to this argument is that it is poorly supported, as in this current moment of time I cannot
provide scientific nor tangible data to prove my objection, yet my objection still stands as we
cannot assume a position to appeal to ignorance, which simply put means that since the idea of
God being the initiator of change in the universe has not yet been disputed or refuted, then it
must be true. Additionally, I could refute the idea that there must always be a first cause. In
3
order to create a plausible argument for this objection, a display of an action that was caused
without a posteriori would be needed. Yet again, as there is yet to be any ‘proof’ of an event
Philosopher X’s original argument, hence my objection wouldn’t succeed in showing the
Part 3: (C)
In conclusion, from evaluation of Philosopher X’s original argument, we are introduction to the
Events cannot be single occurrences and hence must have posterior events that caused
An infinite series of events without a primary first cause can only be explained through
Whilst Philosopher X’s original argument seems on the surface to be unplausible as it can be
If God can truly be self-caused, then what is stopping us from assuming that other
4
Why do we believe that God is the initiator of change in the universe, when there
could quite frankly be other self-caused beings that could have brought the world
From the analysis of both arguments as well as producing objections of my own, we are
now able to re-analyze the cosmological argument and consider its validity and
soundness. In my opinion, after re-evaluation, I can claim that although the cosmological
argument is in part valid, it is not sound. This is primarily because the cosmological
argument states that the initiator of change, cause and contingency rules out all other
beings, hence suggesting between the lines that this being is God, hence the existence
of God as well as the existence of a infinite series of events whose primary initiator was
God. But, as proven through the analysis of Philosopher X’s primary argument and
objective argument, the cosmological argument can be refuted on the basis of there
being multiple initiators as well as there being uncaused events. In conclusion, I believe
that the evaluation of the fore-mentioned arguments, have led me to be able to demur
to the cosmological argument as a whole, with more concrete and plausible objections.