The following six step argument has been formulated with the modern
agnostic and atheist in mind. Each premise is accompanied with an
explanation of the exact 'manner of deduction', so the reader may
appreciate exactly what is being done.
The argument seeks to establish an Entity attributed with
necessaryexistence ( ithbat al-wajib ) and attributes of perfection
such as life, will, power and knowledge, and also freeof all flaws,
including resemblance to the creation in any way which would allow one
to pose the question, "Who created him?" This will all be done based
only on universally accepted absurdities ( musta'hilat ). Certain
areas where attempts have been made to undermine the proof have been
given extra attention. Most major objections have been dealt with in
the main body of the article.
Assumptions and Summary
Due to the lengthy natureof the article, we will firstlist the hinges
upon which the argument depends, and then a brief outline of the
premises. This will be followed by detailed commentary on all of the
stages of the proof, including preempting all major rebuttals. The
issueis a serious one, and we ask our reader to please bear with us.
The argument presupposes two matters that we believe are beyond
debate. We will thus not engage in attempting to 'prove' these two
issues. Instead, we would rathernot discuss with anyone doubtful in
these two issues. They are very obvious:
1. Firstly, the real existence of beings, attributes and events we
observe in the world. Ourdirect observation of them is sufficient in
acquiring knowledge of their real existence.
2. Secondly, the principle of non-contradiction . It is not possible
for two directly opposing propositions to both be true, and likewise
for both to be false. Necessarily, one will be true and the other will
befalse. Similarly if a proposition leads to contradiction – and we
are able to demonstrate this – its opposite will need to be accepted
as true on this basis alone. Itis not warranted for someone to claim
we have not proven our point, if we were successful in demonstrating
contradiction within its opposite. Yes. If an opponent wants to
contest our disjunction, claiming a third option is possible, they are
free to do so. Throughout the article, we will preempt all such
occasions. Naturally, the article will get lengthy at such places. For
this reason weoffer a brief summary before beginning. Below are the
six stages of the argument listed in a summarised fashion:
Premise 1: [I lift my hand in real life, point to it andsay,] This
particular movement of my hand is something which began to exist.
Premise 2: Whatever begins to exist must havea cause.
Premise 3: Therefore, thisparticular movement of my hand must have a cause.
Premise 4: This cause will either be A: contingently existent [along
with what that entails], or B: necessarily existent [along with what
that entails]. There is no third possibility.
Premise 5: This cause is not a contingently existing cause.
Conclusion: Therefore, by rational necessity, it musthave been a
necessarily existent Being who created the movement ofmy hand [along
with all of what this entails].
Just by viewing the summary above, one can gather the following:
* This is not your conventional cosmological argument that sets out to
establish a finite beginning in timefor the universe and argues for a
"primary mover" or "first cause". We ask our reader to please put
aside preconceived notions of what they might think the argument is
attempting and instead pay particular attention to the commentary
whichis to follow.
* From the premises above, one can clearly see that this argument is
attempting to prove boththe existence of a Creatorand also
occasionalism , all in one go.
* In establishing premise 5, the argument will invoke the absurdity of
"infinite regress", as we believe no sound argument for the existence
of a Creator canbe formulated without tackling this important angle.
Again, we ask that the reader not jump to conclusions prior to reading
our explanation.
After this brief introduction, let's now begin with the commentary:
Premise 1: [I lift my hand in real life, point to it andsay,] This
particular movement of my hand is something which began to exist.
The purpose of the first premise is to prepare a subject and place it
in a class based on a consideration relevant toour argument. Here the
subject is a particular movement of my hand. [ 1 ] Is this act
something or is it nothing? Obviously, itis something. What do we call
it? Let's agree on a term. Given that prior to my initiating this
movement, my hand was in my lap. When I lifted it,the particular
movement which was not there earlier, only now began to exist. Based
on this obvious reality, we suggest that the predicate for the first
premise should be 'something which began to exist'. We will ask our
opponent, whether this is an accurate categorization or not. In the
first premise we are not 'proving' anything. We rely on one-time
direct observation in validating this first premise. It does not
involve any experiment, induction or deduction.
'Beginning to exist' is a simple meaning which is clear. What it
contains is the simple notion of a previously non-existent act
entering into the realm of extra-mental existence, something for which
it was always possible to exist in the mind's eye. When something of
this nature actually does exist, this is what we mean by 'beginning to
exist'. Whatelse do we intend by this phrase? Do we have any elaborate
notions regarding this phrase? We say, this is an irrelevant question.
Please put aside what webelieve, and focus on the reality of the hand
being stationary, followed by the particular movement I later drew
attention to. What problem can there then be, if we choose to call it
exactly what it is?
If one needs to contrast the phrase with something which "did not
begin to exist", then this is very easy. Any imaginary movement canbe
used to illustrate the opposite of 'beginning toexist'. We obviously
believe in more than this which will be the ultimate conclusion of the
entire argument. The point is that our first premise does not in any
way depend on this conclusion. In order to accept the idea of
'beginning to exist' one is not required to acknowledge at the very
outset an extra-mentally existing Entity which never began to exist,
i.e. an Entity which is eternally existent. This is not the only
opposite to our phrase 'something which began to exist'. The more
obvious and universally agreed-upon opposite are those possible acts
which have yet to begin. Any yet to exist possible act will suffice.
We can now move to the second premise. [ 2 ]
Premise 2: Whatever begins to exist must havea cause.
In this second premise we have taken the predicate of the
previouspremise (something which began to exist) and have made a
universal judgment uponit. If we are successful in demonstrating the
truth of this universal judgment, then by rational necessity whatever
we say here regarding 'things which begin to exist' as a class will
need to extend to the subject of our first proposition, i.e. the
movement of my hand. This is a self-evidently valid form of deduction.
We call it the Great Rule of Equivalence. [ 3 ] It involves two
premises; a minor one which simply prepares a subject and makes it
belong to a class, and a major premise which takes the class and makes
a universal judgment on it . The purpose is to extend the judgment on
the class to the particular contained within the minor premise. [ 4 ]
How then do we demonstrate the truth of the proposition 'Everything
which begins to exist must have a cause'? Is it by accepting this to
be a self-evident axiom not in need of being proven, or is it done by
surveying the particulars of the principle, i.e. by way of induction,
or by way of some other method? We say, it is indeed a self-evident
truth. It is one of those things which are ingrained in our very
nature. This knowledge is not 'acquired' through experience. Instead
it is used in arguments to prove other less self-evidently true
claims.Had it been inductive, an old person 70 years of age would be
more convinced of its veracity [because of having many more
opportunities to have tested the principle]than say a child of 8 or 9
years. This however is definitely not the case. Children and old
people share exactly the same degree of conviction regarding this
principle. Furthermore, we draw attention to the fact that knowledge
of real extra-mental things in the world is something we do not doubt.
This knowledge however is based entirely on the causality principle.
If you were to enter a room with your eyes closed, you would not know
what is in the room. When you open your eyes, only then, knowledge of
what is in the room will be gained for you. We say, if you donot have
doubt regarding knowledge of the real existence of the things in the
room, you should also not doubt theprinciple which was the basis for
this knowledge. This is what we mean when we say that this principle
is self-evidently true. Another example of something which is
self-evidently true is the impossibility of contradiction.
As far as the truth of our second premise is concerned, many will be
satisfied with what was mentioned in the previous paragraph. Some will
naturally need more. Not a problem. We have a second method for
demonstrating the truth of the proposition. This second method is
nothing more than taking one first principle (the causality principle)
and explaining it in light of another more clear first principle,
namely theimpossibility of contradiction. The questions to our
opponent at this time would be: Do you accept that contradictions are
impossible? Do you accept that every thesis has an antithesis? Do you
accept that if one of two direct opposites is false on account of
involving contradiction, then by rational necessity the other must be
true? If these three obvious points are conceded, we may proceed:
The direct opposite of 'Everything which begins to exist must have a
cause' is 'Not everything which begins to exist must have a cause',
which is in the power of 'Some things which begin to exist do not have
a cause'. Anything which begins to exist by definition can not be
necessarily existent [whether such a categoryactually exists or not is
not the point currently. Our opponent is free to believe that it is
purely hypothetical]. Otherwise it would have been existent since
eternity past, since necessarily existent means its very nature
requires for it to exist in which case it cannot have a beginning for
its existence. Similarly, it can not be impossible because impossible
things do not happen in which case it would not have begun toexist.
Since such a thing can neither be necessary,nor impossible, it must
bemerely possible (another word for which is contingent). Therefore,
with respect to the very nature of such a thing, both existence and
non-existence are equal. That it is to say, there is nothing in its
very naturewhich requires existence (since it is not necessary),nor is
there anything in its very nature which requires non-existence (since
it is also not impossible). Thus the twoare indeed equal.
Whenever any contingent being [or attribute, act, event] leaves the
realm of non-existence and becomes existent [such asthe movement of my
hand, subsequent to it being stationary in my lap] , it will
necessarily need to be on account of some external cause preferring
its existence over its non-existence. Otherwise, this is impossible on
account of involving preponderancewithout a preferrer. [ 5 ] This is a
contradiction because it leads to non-equality in existenceand
non-existence of thatwherein equality of the two was assumed [in the
previous paragraph]. Thething we're talking aboutlike the
hand-movement was not necessary, nor was it impossible. Its existence
and non-existence were both equal, i.e. not required byits very nature
.. so now, if it comes to be without a cause, then this means that
existence [in relationto its very nature] is preponderant over
non-existence, and just a minute ago we agreed that the two were
equal. So how can something be such that both its existence and
non-existence are equal and at the same time be such that its
existence is preponderant above its non-existence? Since
contradictions are impossible, our antithesis'Some things which begin
to exist do not have a cause' is definitelyfalse. Since both a thesis
and its antithesis can not be false, our original proposition
'Everything which begins to exist must have a cause' is necessarily
true. [ 6 ]
The conclusion of the argument until this point is:
Premise 3: Therefore, the movement of my hand must have a cause.
The above concludes the first leg of our argument.We will now take the
conclusion arrived at from the above, namely 'a cause' and make it the
subject of a new argument using another mode of argument called the
Rule of Opposition. But before this, let us remind that in all of the
above steps what we did not do is mention the word God. Not even once.
Even the term 'necessarily existent' onlyoccurred once, and that too
in a hypothetical context. The phrase 'eternally existent' similarly
occurred once inorder to illustrate that the first premise did not
rely on our adversary's acceptance of eternal existence. This is an
important point, namely that the above steps were clearly traversed
without any reliance on our ultimate conclusion or anything entailed
thereby. Therefore, it is accurate when we say, we did not expect our
adversary to entertain any notion which he does not already believe to
be true.
Having arrived at the conclusion in step 3, we are now ready to
introduce the Rule of Opposition. This is another intuitively
deductive mode of argument the veracity of which no reasonable human
being can doubt. [ 7 ]
In the previous argumentwe established with zero probability of the
opposite alternative that the movement of my hand definitely has a
cause. Now, we will restrict this conclusion of the previous argument
within two exhaustive possibilities. One of them will be based on what
our adversary understands from causality and existence. We will tailor
for him a very specific analogy in order to demonstrate that the cause
for the hand-movement cannot have been what he understands from both
causality and existence. This will be because his side of the
disjunction involves glaring absurdities which are universally
accepted: "…when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains,
however improbable, must be the truth". This is universally agreed
upon. This is the Rule of Opposition.
Premise 4: This cause will either be A: contingently existent [along
with what that entails], or B: necessarily existent [along with what
that entails]. There is no 3rd possibility.
This has been thoroughlyexplained in the previoussection. The B side
of the disjunction is our true claim. It is yet to be proven. Do not
worry. Wewill do that towards the end of the argument. Placing it
right there in the premise for the worldto see is totally valid, since
we are now dealingwith a disjunction. It will be our task to
illustrate how side A involves glaring absurdities, and how these
absurdities can not be removed in any way except by accepting what we
will place on the B side of thedisjunction. This is what the Rule of
Opposition is supposed to do after all.
Premise 5: This cause is not a contingently existing cause.
To claim that the cause which resulted in the movement of my hand was
of the very same nature as the movement itself, namely something which
itself began to exist, is not possible, because positing this
necessitates that the movement of my hand remain in the realm of
non-existence, whereas in premise 1 we confirmed that the hand did
move.
If one assigns properties to causality and existencesuch as being
confined within spacetime [and other such attributes entailed by
contingency],then they are essentially claiming that an infinite
series of cause/effect relationships must have been concluded before
the movement of my hand could ever have had a chance to begin to
exist. This however is impossible because infinity can not end. That
would be a contradictionin terms. If it ends, it can never be
infinite. If it is infinite, it can never end. You would need an
infinite amount of time toconclude an infinite amount of beginnings
and endings. This is like acar, if it needs to move from A to B, and
the condition for its reachingits destination happens to be the
concluding of its wheels rotating an infinite amount of times — in
such a scenario for it to reach its destination is clearly impossible,
since you would need an infinite amount of time toconclude an infinite
amount of rotations. Anything dependent on this can never have a
chance to occur.
At this point, our opponent will say something along the lines of the
following: "Fair enough. We do not entertain an infinite regress. We
have our reasons for this. According to us, we begin a journey from
the present moment and keep going back in the past until we hit a
certainevent which occurred approximately 13.7 billion years ago. We
maintain that all matter, energy, space, time and everything else came
intobeing at this point in time. Prior to this there was no spacetime.
Existence and causality can not occur independent of spacetime.
Therefore, thejourney stops at this event. If you want to continue the
journey beyond this point, you must bring proof".
We will reply thus: Your stopping of the journey itself at any finite
time in the past [based on whatever consideration] does nothing to
remove the absurdity we are highlighting. [ 8 ]
If we had a line of soldiers consisting of only 20. This line stops
on20. There is no 21st. Everysoldier in the line has a gun and is
capable of shooting, but there is one condition that needs to be
fulfilled before any soldier in the line can ever have a chance to
shoot. That condition is for the soldier before him to shoot. Keep in
mind that the line stops at 20. Will a shot ever be fired? The answer
is no, because the one closest to us will not be firing, on account of
the one before him not firing, on account of the one before him not
firing and so on. The final soldier does not have a soldier before him
and yet his condition for firing is also unfulfilled. Hence, noshot
will be fired and we are left with complete silence. Let's now double
the line. Will anything change? Obviously, no. Again, complete
silence. Make it a billion soldiers? 13.7 billion years worth of
soldiers? Same result. Same complete silence. So you see, making it
infinite or entertaining an 'abrupt cut-off', eitherway, the result is
exactly the same. The entire series remains restricted to ones
imagination. The need attached to each and every unit remains
unfulfilled, including the need attached to the veryfirst unit in the
series .
In utter desperation, he or she will now ask, "OK, you tell us, what
happened? You will inadvertently say, 'there was an Entity in the
background all along (God) who pulled the trigger for the first
soldier'. Where did this Entity come from? He wasnever part of the
equation. This is absurd. If you can entertain this absurdity, I can
claim thatthe very first unit in the series occurred causelessly.
What's the difference?"
We will respectfully remind them at this pointthat we are still
discussing their side of the disjunction. There areno soldiers for us,
as will become clear very shortly. Be patient. This whole analogy was
carefully tailored to reflect only our adversary's notions of
existence and causality, namely that both causality and existence
cannot occur independent of spacetime. This is why there is no such
Entity as part of the equation. We are not being gratuitous. Not at
all.
At this point, we particularly ask our reader to please focus onwhat
is about to be said. In the upcoming paragraphs we will address some
major rebuttals which have been presented throughout the ages.
Thiswill get intense, and it is possible that some might need to
reread what we will mention a couple of times in order to get a clear
picture.
What just happened in these last two paragraphs is very significant:
The atheist thought we were getting ready to establish a "first cause"
(after all, this is what the majority of arguments out there do),
thinking we too must reply to the soldiers' analogy. He found positing
an entity outsidespacetime to be absurd because according to himthere
is no existence, nor causality outside spacetime. He misunderstood and
believed the soldiers were there to represent entities and attributes
which exist in the world. Since we also believe in the existence of
such entities and attributes, we also must offer a solution. He then
assumed our solution was to invoke a first cause. Based on this, he
attempted to put words in our mouth: "there was an Entity in the
background.." We, instead, took this very objection of the atheist and
made it a componentof our proof, which we will later make use of in
order to establish "occasionalism" which is our true belief.
The soldiers are not thereto represent entities and attributes which
began to exist. Therefore, not everyone who accepts the existence of
these entities and attributes will be confronted with this 'riddle'.
Rather they are there to represent existing entities and attributes
only in their capacity as causes leading to the movementof my hand .
This is the understanding of our adversary. The analogy was tailored
specifically for him. We do not adoptthis position. Therefore the
soldiers do not apply to us.
We claim there is absolutely no solution to this problem according to
the principles held to be true according to the adversary, namely that
causality and existence cannot occur independent of spacetime. [ 9 ]
As for the question of whether positing a first cause is a viable
position, in and of itself, and if an agnostic chooses to forgo their
principles (of spacetime dependency) and entertains "transcendence"
solely inorder to terminate the infinite regress, while of course
claiming that the Entity is simply transcendent and beyondspacetime
(in order to differentiate him from the rest of the soldiers), though
life-less and unconscious… will such a positing undermine our fifth
premise which states that the cause for the hand-movement is not a
contingent cause? In other words, what problem is there in having an
Entity set the series of contingent causes into motion at a particular
point in time (for ease of reference, let's choose the Big Bang
singularity), and then have the contingent causes bring about their
effects, one after the other, eventually leading to the movement of my
hand? Moreover, why does this Entity need to be alive, or posses any
consciousness? Perhaps he triggered the chain reaction inadvertently?
This is an important question. We will addressthis below:
We contest the notion that mere transcendence (being outside
spacetime) is sufficient interminating the infinite regress. Rather
what is required is "necessary existence". This was intended to be
explainedat stage 6, but we see no option but to exhaust theissue
right here at premise 5. We thus begin:
The very first event in theseries of contingent causes occurred,
configured with a specific configuration of certain attributes, such
aslocation, precise momentof existence, intensity, duration, etc. Take
the time aspect for instance: The event occurred at a particular point
in time which has been traced back to approximately 13.7 billion years
ago. Weargue that in the mind's eye it was conceivable for this to
have occurred before or after its actual time by an almost
infiniteamount of moments in either direction. All such moments were
equal. There was nothing in the very nature of the event which
required for it to come to be at its specific moment (otherwise, we
would not have been able to even conceive other possible moments),nor
was there anything within its very nature requiring for it to not
exist at this moment (because impossible things do not happen). All
moments were thus equal in relation to its very nature. Now, when it
did occur at its specific moment, this must have been on account of an
attribute within the Being that caused it which specified one of an
almost infinite amount of moments above all others. We will call this
attribute "will", constitutive of which is "life". Claiming that the
Entity caused the chain reaction of contingent causes without being
alive, or without possessing will, is absurd,because it entails a
contradiction of non-equality within the total possible moments, all
of which were deemed equal. [ 10 ] Thus there must have been will,
constitutive of which is life. So the attribute by which the actual
coming into existence of the first event occurred is "power", and the
attribute by which the attributes of that event (location, moment of
existence, intensity, duration, etc.) were specified is "will".
Moreover, an Entity capable of creating based on specification can not
create what He does not "know". We thus have the four attributes of
life, power, will and knowledge. These are all necessary. Without
them, the infinite regress cannot beterminated.
