Thank you for the excellent post Dr. Parrish. Though we are Atheists, we greatly admire your work. You're in fact one of the few Christian Apologists to actually take on formidable defenders of Atheism such as Graham Oppy, J.L. Mackie, Erik Wielenberg, etc. We hope that more Christian Apologists can follow your example and seek to engage with the best of Atheism (and of course we hope that Atheists can engage with the best of Theism as well, your work serving as a model).
While the issues in your post can definitely be extended and discussed in a more in-depth manner, we just want to highlight one avenue for the Naturalist and Atheist to take when it comes to questions of existence (namely the challenge offered by Leibnizian Cosmological Arguments from Contingency).
I think the first objection that can be put forward here is that from Hume. We can simply ask why think that an explanation of a whole cannot simply consist of whatever explains each part? We can say that an explanation of the contingent whole simply consists of the conjunction of the explanations of each contingent entity. Then there would be no need for a non-contingent cause.
Another contemporary variation of this response is Quentin Smith's argument[1]. Through the utilization of Big Bang Cosmology we can argue every instantaneous state of the universe corresponding to a number in the interval 0 > x < or = 1 preceded and is caused by earlier instantaneous states. Basically, this means that there is no instantaneous state in the first half-open second or the first half-open one-billionth of a second, which is uncaused. Since the beginning of the universe’s existence is the instantaneous states that are members of a half-open interval, it follows from Smith's argument[2] that the universe’s beginning to exist is internally caused. If Smith is correct then he has defeated the argument from contingency, to quote Smith:
"My explanation mentions only beings that exist contingently; the universe might not have existed and the states of the universe might not have existed. Since the existence of each state is caused by earlier states, and since the existence of all these states entails the universe’s existence, there is an explanation for everything that contingently exists."
Of course. I do think Quentin Smith's work approach can be challenged, but I also think he provides a unique avenue for Atheists and Naturalists to respond to the argument you've outlined here.
Thank you again for the post and we look forward to your future projects on the subject.
Thank you for the excellent post Dr. Parrish. Though we are Atheists, we greatly admire your work. You're in fact one of the few Christian Apologists to actually take on formidable defenders of Atheism such as Graham Oppy, J.L. Mackie, Erik Wielenberg, etc. We hope that more Christian Apologists can follow your example and seek to engage with the best of Atheism (and of course we hope that Atheists can engage with the best of Theism as well, your work serving as a model).
While the issues in your post can definitely be extended and discussed in a more in-depth manner, we just want to highlight one avenue for the Naturalist and Atheist to take when it comes to questions of existence (namely the challenge offered by Leibnizian Cosmological Arguments from Contingency).
I think the first objection that can be put forward here is that from Hume. We can simply ask why think that an explanation of a whole cannot simply consist of whatever explains each part? We can say that an explanation of the contingent whole simply consists of the conjunction of the explanations of each contingent entity. Then there would be no need for a non-contingent cause.
Another contemporary variation of this response is Quentin Smith's argument[1]. Through the utilization of Big Bang Cosmology we can argue every instantaneous state of the universe corresponding to a number in the interval 0 > x < or = 1 preceded and is caused by earlier instantaneous states. Basically, this means that there is no instantaneous state in the first half-open second or the first half-open one-billionth of a second, which is uncaused. Since the beginning of the universe’s existence is the instantaneous states that are members of a half-open interval, it follows from Smith's argument[2] that the universe’s beginning to exist is internally caused. If Smith is correct then he has defeated the argument from contingency, to quote Smith:
"My explanation mentions only beings that exist contingently; the universe might not have existed and the states of the universe might not have existed. Since the existence of each state is caused by earlier states, and since the existence of all these states entails the universe’s existence, there is an explanation for everything that contingently exists."
Of course. I do think Quentin Smith's work approach can be challenged, but I also think he provides a unique avenue for Atheists and Naturalists to respond to the argument you've outlined here.
Thank you again for the post and we look forward to your future projects on the subject.
Notes:
[1] http://www.stafforini.com/docs/Smith%20-%20The%20reason%20the%20universe%20exists%20is%20that%20it%20caused%20itself%20to%20exist.pdf
[2] http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/smith-kalam-cosmological-arguments.pdf
[3] ibid.