In the combox of a previous post, NotAScientist dropped by and left some comments regarding the Cosmological argument or more specifically in response to my contention that the question “Who made God?” may be the dumbest question ever. His first comment was related to the fact that believers mistakenly convey that the cosmological argument (hereafter CA) makes no distinction between a necessary and a contingent being. On this point he/she is at least partially correct. Theists (read:well meaning apologists) do sometimes misrepresent the argument. His/her point was that if a theist asserts that everything has a cause-then by implication-God must have a cause.
Granted, if God was a contingent being then God would surely need some antecedent cause. However this is not CA but an unfortunate deformation. The actual argument is all contingent causes require a cause. His/her follow up comment was more interesting (and entertaining) as he/she asserted that this was a case of special pleading.
Unfortunately this is also wrong and belies only a passing acquaintance with informal fallacies. For a good example of special pleading consider this example: Everyone should obey the speed limit, except for State Police in Colorado. This makes an exception to a subset of classes within a class without qualification. In other words for CA to be a case of special pleading a necessary condition of the fallacy is that the argument is presented in its incorrect form. Special pleading could be leveled against CA if and only if God is represented as a contigent being that is not subject to contigency and has no antecedent cause.
Hi BBG,
LTNS
I just have a question that I am a little confused on. When you say that God is “necessary” or not contingent, why does such a state only apply to a “god”?
Why couldn’t any other “thing” (ie. something non-conscious) be a non-contingent necessary first cause? Or just a thing that always existed, that never came about?
Also, what of an acausal event? Why is that ruled out?
And why couldn’t God have come about? What would be wrong with that if God was contingent, as long as he had those other qualities?
And as a side question, how could god know he is the first/only/necessary god, and not a god in which another god created to believe he was the first/only/necessary god? How could “god” have knowledge of this when another god could make it seem like the other had the knowledge when they really do not? Why couldn’t a (non-deciever) god have come about by a deciever god (or a long line of deciever gods)?
Just some things to ponder.
Take care,
‘Trick
By: trickslattery on December 12, 2011
at 1:40 pm