8/9/2019 Against Cosmo

1/2

Objections To The Cosmological Argument

The Cosmological Argument:In Humes Dialogues, part 9, the character Demea

begins by summarizing the Cosmological Argument. Everything, he says, has a

cause or a reason. If e as! hat causes something, it is some prior thing" an#

as e go bac! in the chain of causes, e fin# that either$ %&' the chain ofcauses or reasons goes bac! infinitely, or %(' that chain terminates in some first

%necessarily e)isting' cause.

He then argues that option %&' is impossible. *or, even if there ere an eternal,

infinite chain of causes, the CHAI+ I-E* oul# still re/uire some %necessarily

e)isting' cause or e)planation. he argument may be summarize# as follos$

&. Everything that e)ists must have some cause or reason for its e)istence.

his cause may be either %a' -omething e)ternal to itself %i.e., a

0#epen#ent1 being', or %b' -omething internal to itself %i.e., a 0necessary1being'.

(. It is impossible for every being to be a #epen#ent being %for, even if there

ere a beginningless, infinite series of them, the hole series itself oul#

still re/uire some cause or e)planation for its e)istence'.

2. herefore, at least one necessary being e)ists %an# e call this 3o#'.

Objections to the Cosmological Argument:Cleanthes then raises a number of

ob4ections to this argument. hese are$

&. Denying the conclusion$ Even if this argument ere successful, Cleanthes

as!s hy it must be the case that the necessary being is 3o#5 He as!s, 0hy

may not the material universe be the necessarily e)istent being51 *or, it seems

at least conceivable that matter coul# contain the reason or e)planation for

its on e)istence ithin itself. hat is, it coul# be a part of the +A67E of

matter that it 86- e)ist.

Clar!e thin!s that the e)istence of the universe can only be e)plaine# by a

0self:e)istent1 being" i.e., one that contains the reason for its on e)istence

ithin itself. He calls this 3o#. ;ut, is the concept of a self:e)istent being

coherent5 If it I- coherent, hy #oesnt this concept permit the 6+I

&

8/9/2019 Against Cosmo

2/2

(. Denying premise ($ Cleanthes raises to problems ith premise ($

a. *irst, it #oesnt even ma!e -E+-E to as! hat is the cause of something

that has e)iste# eternally. o as! hat cause# the infinite series of causes

pre:supposes that there is something ?7I@7 to or ;E*@7E that chain. ;ut,

that is senseless.b. -econ#, it seems that, to provi#e an e)planation for every ?A7 in a group

of things 6- I- to provi#e an e)planation for the hole. *or instance, if I

have a collection of (B coins, an# I gave you a complete e)planation of

the causes an# reasons of EACH in#ivi#ual coin, it oul# be rather o## to

then as!, 0;ut, hat is the e)planation for the hole tenty51 7ather, the

e)planation for the hole 6- I- the (B e)planations for all of the

in#ivi#ual parts. ;ut, every part of the infinite series of causes D@E- have

an e)planation" namely, the prior cause. *or every in#ivi#ual in the series,

the one before it is its e)planation.

Conclusion:Hume conclu#es that the Cosmological Argument is not a

conclusive proof for the e)istence of 3o#. Hume seems to suggest that the

universe might have e)iste# for eternity, an# this infinite series #oes not re/uire

an a##itional cause or e)planation that is outsi#e of the series.

+ote$ =hat might Hume say in light of more recent evi#ence that the universe

#i#, in fact, have a beginning5 @n some versions of ;ig ;ang theory, all matter

an# energyan# even space an# time4ust came into e)istence out of

nothingness. 8ust Hume a#mit #efeat in this case5

7evie premise & of Demeas argument. It is assume# that E

(