Metaphysics - Ch. 6 (A)

(Originally written July 30, 2006 in Book 6)

Metaphysics - Peter van Inwagen

Chapter 6 - Necessary Being: The Cosmological Argument

The principle of sufficient reason states: for every truth there is a sufficient reason for it being true. The principle of sufficient reason does not entail that everything has a purpose, only that there is a reason for the truth being true or a reason why something is the way it is.

The principle of sufficient reason produces this argument for why something exits: "There is a necessarily existent thing that is in some way responsible for the fact that there are contingent things" (van Inwagen, 102).

The principle of sufficient reason present difficulties though. Quantum mechanics claims nature is filled with events that occur without explanation. Another part of the principle of sufficient reason that is difficult to entertain is that all true propositions are necessarily true. It denies the possibility of contingently true propositions.

If the principle of sufficient reason is false than the entire cosmological argument for why anything rather than nothing exists is false.

Are there other possible worlds as is assumed? I would say no. There is only one possible world and that is the one we exist in. This world could be much different in a variety of ways (i.e. history could be completely different or the world could have more or fewer cities) but that would simply be a variation of this actual world.

Premise 1

The world (physical universe) exists to be a habitat for its inhabitants.

Is this provable? I cannot think of a way to argue it in an indefensible way, but that does not imply that it is false. We have two options when we consider the origin and purpose of the world. Well, three.

1) The world has existed in the way it does in essence eternally.
2) The world has evolved from whatever primordial substance in an undirected, accidental way to produce a habitat capable of sustaining life.
3) The world was created in a purposeful way as a habitat for its inhabitants by a creator.

Each option can have variations but essentially it is one of these three options.

The first option is the most improbable of the three. Science like the laws of thermodynamics deny the possibility of the world existing as it does now forever. That leaves us with the last two options. The principle of sufficient reason would demand that the earth exists in a way that has a purpose and deny accidental causes, but people who reject the principle of sufficient reason will not be swayed by that argument. We face a bit of a conundrum. For this dilemma I will appeal to Occam's razor. What demands more speculation: the existence of a Creator (Supreme Being/God) or the probability of concurrent accidents?

In order to accept option two we would have to accept many unprovable scientific hypotheses. The weight of science is truly impressive and hard to escape. Is science infallible though? Science has produced many truths and many, many falsehoods. The fact that it has produced falsehoods shows that it is not infallible. I could list a number of error science has produced but that would simply be prejudicial.

In order to accept option three we would have to accept one, untestable hypothesis: there is a Supreme Being.

Now by simple numbers it would seem that accepting one hypothesis is less speculative than accepting a number of hypotheses. But, the hypothesis that God exists is hard to accept and a number of scientific hypotheses (even if some are obviously false) seem to be probable.

I do not feel that the ontological argument holds any weight. But, I believe that the first cause argument proves the existence of a necessary being or a god. (For the conclusion of this argument see Book 5 pg. 43-53)