Awhile ago, one of the atheists here brought this up, and I didn't give it the time it rightly deserved. Whoever you are, I apologize.
One of David Hume's objections to the causal argument for the existence of God revolves around the fallacy of composition. First, the definition:
(per wiki) The fallacy of composition is an informal fallacy that arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole.
A trivial example might be: "This tire is made of rubber, therefore the vehicle of which it is a part is also made of rubber." This is fallacious, because vehicles are made with a variety of parts, most of which are not made of rubber.
Another example: "Since every part of a certain machine is light in weight, the machine as a whole is light in weight."
Hume's argument is summarized as follows:
Simply because causality occurs within the universe, it does not logically follow there must be a grand cause for the existence of all of the separate causes in the whole universe. Moreover, Thomas Aquinas' assertion that "To take away the cause is to take away the effect" would not hold for an infinite regress of causes since there is no cause taken away.
A thumbnail sketch of my responses (nothing really set in stone) is as follows:
1.) An appeal to infinite regress is never a conclusive reason for explaining anything, because it doesn't actually answer anything. If it ever did, then regression itself would necessarily cease. All non-answers or inconclusive answers are themselves deductively irrational. It is both dishonest as well as a gross contradiction to call an inconclusive answer conclusive. It's also a violation of law of excluded middle, which doesn't allow for "indeterminate" as an answer equal to a determinate. An indeterminate conclusion doesn't equal a determinate conclusion. They are mutually contradictory.
2.) Infinite regress is not sound, because an infinite regress of causes would never reach the present day. Nor would it even reach the moment of the Big Bang.
3.) Hume's "meta" relies on a wholly non-empirical observation from an abstract supra-natural perspective located completely outside the universe in-order to critique causality within the universe. "The phrase "within the universe" is stated from an outsider's POV, or "God's eye view." If that is the case, then his own argument is self-refuting, due to the fact that he's criticizing his own meta-perspective. However, if Hume's meta is true, then cause can occur outside the universe.
Note: Laws of logic are never "contained" nor dominated by a hierarchy of materialism, ontological naturalism, or "empiricism-as-dogma." But rather the reverse: All nature is entirely logic-dependent. Thus cause, like all laws of logic, necessarily exist outside the universe.
4.) If the other laws of logic apply to claims such as "universe," (i.e. law of identity) then Hume cannot special-plead law of causality as inapplicable to any extent. Moreover, he cannot apply fallacy of composition to defeat a law of logic itself. He's essentially trying to apply reason to defeat reason. <-- what the. . .???
5.) If the whole universe is made up of basic subatomic particles, i.e. "star stuff," then one only needs to account for the particles. Physics is reductionist. So Theists don't have to argue a cause for the existence of "all of the separate causes in the whole universe," but rather just the reductionist bits, or even the one singularity that led to the Big Bang.
Going back to Hume's billiards argument, if I strike the cue on the break, then I don't necessarily have to account for the effect of every single ball thereafter, as all these subsequent effects themselves become causal relationships with other balls, cushions, pockets, etc.
6.) Doubt is subjective; not objective. Doubt is an act of the subjective will. Doubt carries no dominant hierarchy in the universe. Even "reasonable doubt" must necessarily be subordinate to reason. Merely doubting the direct observation of cause is not equal to the cause itself (nor of equal authority).
7.) Fallacy of composition is an erroneous assumption, while cause itself is a deductive absolute instead. While cause can often be misattributed, a confirmed cause is not an assumption. Scientifically speaking, if Steady State theory has been falsified, and Big Bang is more likely a confirmed fact, then attributing fallacy of composition to it would itself be an unscientific claim.
That's what I have for now. Maybe more will follow. . .
One of David Hume's objections to the causal argument for the existence of God revolves around the fallacy of composition. First, the definition:
(per wiki) The fallacy of composition is an informal fallacy that arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole.
A trivial example might be: "This tire is made of rubber, therefore the vehicle of which it is a part is also made of rubber." This is fallacious, because vehicles are made with a variety of parts, most of which are not made of rubber.
Another example: "Since every part of a certain machine is light in weight, the machine as a whole is light in weight."
Hume's argument is summarized as follows:
Simply because causality occurs within the universe, it does not logically follow there must be a grand cause for the existence of all of the separate causes in the whole universe. Moreover, Thomas Aquinas' assertion that "To take away the cause is to take away the effect" would not hold for an infinite regress of causes since there is no cause taken away.
A thumbnail sketch of my responses (nothing really set in stone) is as follows:
1.) An appeal to infinite regress is never a conclusive reason for explaining anything, because it doesn't actually answer anything. If it ever did, then regression itself would necessarily cease. All non-answers or inconclusive answers are themselves deductively irrational. It is both dishonest as well as a gross contradiction to call an inconclusive answer conclusive. It's also a violation of law of excluded middle, which doesn't allow for "indeterminate" as an answer equal to a determinate. An indeterminate conclusion doesn't equal a determinate conclusion. They are mutually contradictory.
2.) Infinite regress is not sound, because an infinite regress of causes would never reach the present day. Nor would it even reach the moment of the Big Bang.
3.) Hume's "meta" relies on a wholly non-empirical observation from an abstract supra-natural perspective located completely outside the universe in-order to critique causality within the universe. "The phrase "within the universe" is stated from an outsider's POV, or "God's eye view." If that is the case, then his own argument is self-refuting, due to the fact that he's criticizing his own meta-perspective. However, if Hume's meta is true, then cause can occur outside the universe.
Note: Laws of logic are never "contained" nor dominated by a hierarchy of materialism, ontological naturalism, or "empiricism-as-dogma." But rather the reverse: All nature is entirely logic-dependent. Thus cause, like all laws of logic, necessarily exist outside the universe.
4.) If the other laws of logic apply to claims such as "universe," (i.e. law of identity) then Hume cannot special-plead law of causality as inapplicable to any extent. Moreover, he cannot apply fallacy of composition to defeat a law of logic itself. He's essentially trying to apply reason to defeat reason. <-- what the. . .???
5.) If the whole universe is made up of basic subatomic particles, i.e. "star stuff," then one only needs to account for the particles. Physics is reductionist. So Theists don't have to argue a cause for the existence of "all of the separate causes in the whole universe," but rather just the reductionist bits, or even the one singularity that led to the Big Bang.
Going back to Hume's billiards argument, if I strike the cue on the break, then I don't necessarily have to account for the effect of every single ball thereafter, as all these subsequent effects themselves become causal relationships with other balls, cushions, pockets, etc.
6.) Doubt is subjective; not objective. Doubt is an act of the subjective will. Doubt carries no dominant hierarchy in the universe. Even "reasonable doubt" must necessarily be subordinate to reason. Merely doubting the direct observation of cause is not equal to the cause itself (nor of equal authority).
7.) Fallacy of composition is an erroneous assumption, while cause itself is a deductive absolute instead. While cause can often be misattributed, a confirmed cause is not an assumption. Scientifically speaking, if Steady State theory has been falsified, and Big Bang is more likely a confirmed fact, then attributing fallacy of composition to it would itself be an unscientific claim.
That's what I have for now. Maybe more will follow. . .
Last edited:
