The reasoning that a necessary being can only give rise to a necessary universe confuses logical implication with causal link.

From Wikidebates
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning: this page title ends with a period. Rename the page to remove the point.
Parent debateThis argument is used in the debate Does God exist?.
Argument againstThis argument is an objection to The universe is contingent.
Keywords: Cosmological argument, First cause, God, Causality[ edit ].

SummarySummary

[ edit ]
No summary has been entered yet.

QuotationsQuotes

[ edit ]

“Some philosophers (Sartre, for example) argue that if the contingent universe had its raison d'être in a necessary being, it would itself be necessary. For, they say, propositions deduced from necessary propositions are also necessary (if it is necessary for P that P implies Q, then it is necessary for Q). [...] Here, there is a confusion between logical implication and causal link. Requiring an ultimate necessary cause in no way implies that it must cancel out the contingency of the universe by providing a deductive explanation. [...] The first cause does not imply the universe. It causes it, which is different.”

Frédéric Guillaud, God exists, p.197, Éditions du Cerf, Paris, 2013.

ReferencesReferences

[ edit ]
No references have been entered yet.

Arguments forJustifications

[ edit ]
    No arguments have been entered yet.

Arguments againstObjections

[ edit ]
    No objections have been entered yet.

Parent debateParent debate

Retrieved from "https://en.wikidebates.org/w/index.php?title=The_reasoning_that_a_necessary_being_can_only_give_rise_to_a_necessary_universe_confuses_logical_implication_with_causal_link.&oldid=6432"