Without a first cause, the series of causes cannot be explained.

From Wikidebates
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Parent debateThis argument is used in the debate Does God exist?.
Keywords: Cosmological argument, First cause, God, Causality, Universe[ edit ].



“Can we say that the existence of the totality of elements is explained, with the existence of each element being explained by another? Here too, the answer must be in the negative. For we would have to face up to the contradiction that a totality finds the explanation for its existence within itself, while none of its elements finds the explanation for its existence within itself. If the existence of each element of the series is entirely dependent on another element of the series, the existence of the whole series is causally unfounded. It's a bit like explaining the presence of a reflection of something in a mirror by the action of a previous reflection of that thing in another mirror, "ad infinitum", without ever positing the existence of the thing reflected. This kind of explanation amounts to solving a problem by pushing it under the carpet. Yet this is what the scientistic explanation of the existence of totality does, constantly presupposing the existence of what it claims to explain. It confines itself to describing an infinite chain of beings, all of which have received existence without any of them ever possessing it in their own right. Consequently, the entire series needs a cause, which it can find within itself, since nothing within it exists by itself. The fact that the parts are infinite in number makes no difference.”

Frédéric Guillaud, God exists, p.102-103, Éditions du Cerf, Paris, 2013.



Arguments forJustifications

Arguments againstObjections

Parent debateParent debate