Q&A: On the Revision to the Cosmological and Physico-Theological Argument
On the Revision to the Cosmological and Physico-Theological Argument
Question
Hello,
Following the difficulty of infinite regress (what is God’s cause), the revision you propose to the arguments is to replace the premise that “everything has a cause” with “everything in our experience has a cause.”
But doesn’t that add an assumption that there are things that are not in our experience?
(There is of course nothing wrong with that, because it should be examined on its own terms. But I’d also be glad to know whether I have indeed “exposed” an additional assumption.)
Maybe I should first ask: what exactly is this category of things that are not in our experience?
It seemingly sounds like a category created only for one being—God.
Answer
There is no such assumption here. I am claiming that things within our experience do not come into being on their own. Whether or not there are other things is a question that remains open at this stage. The argument is what proves that there must necessarily be some other thing, otherwise we end up in an infinite regress.