Exercise 5:   An Argument from Causation for the Existence of God

Due Date:   Monday, February 14Proportion of Final Grade:  10%

        The passage below contains an argument for the existence of God that is based upon St. Thomas Aquinas's second proof of the existence of God as set out in his Summa Theologica, Question 2, Article 3.  I have, however, modified the original argument quite extensively, for the purposes of the present exercise.

        The exercise involves three parts.  In part 1, the object is to find the inference indicators that the passage contains.  Then, in part 2, the goal is to make use of those inference indicators to determine what the sub-arguments in the passage are.  Part 3 is then concerned with locating possible weaknesses in the argument.

        One way of proving the existence of God is based on the notion of causation.  In the observable world we discover an order of causes, in which some things are caused by others things.  But no case is found, or ever could be found, of something that was the cause of itself, since such a thing would have to be prior to itself, which is impossible.  Next, notice that it is also impossible to go back forever in a series of efficient causes - a fact that can be established in the following way.  First of all, in every ordered series of causes, the first member of the series causes the intermediate member (or members), which in turn causes the most recent, or the final thing, in the series.  But if you eliminate a cause, you eliminate all of its effects.  Consequently, if the first member of any causal series had not existed, then neither would there have been any final effect, or any intermediate members in that causal series.  But if a causal series went back forever, without end, then there would not be any first cause in that series.  So if any causal series went back forever, there could not be any final effects, or intermediate causes and effects, in that series.  But there are, in the world, final effects, and intermediate causes and effects.  Hence, no such series of causes can go back forever, without end.  But if this is so, then there must be some entity that causes all other things, but that is not itself caused by anything else.  Consequently, it is necessary to posit an entity that is not caused by anything else that exists, and that is the cause of everything else that exists.  We have seen, however, that nothing can be the cause of itself.  Accordingly, there must be a unique thing that is the uncaused cause of everything else that exists.  But this is exactly what is meant by the term 'God'.  It has therefore been shown that God exists.
 
 

Part 1:  Inference Indicators

Instructions

        The above passage contains seven words, or phrases, that indicate that an inference is being made.  Circle each of those inference-indicators.  (1 point each, for a total of 7 points.)

    Getting the inference-indicators right is crucial for Parts 2 and 3 of this exercise.  So it's important to avoid mistaking such things as enumerative terms, contrastive terms, argument-indicators, proof-indicators, assertion-terms, and so on, for inference-indicators.  (If you have any uncertainty about this at any point, do look at the material that accompanied Exercise 1, or else the lecture for Exercise 1 that is on the class web site.)
 

Part 2:  The Seven Sub-Arguments

Instructions

1.  Each inference involves two premises - one of which may be implicit, rather than being explicitly stated.  In the case of each of the six inferences, set out the two premises, and the conclusion.  (1 point for each correct premise, and for each correct conclusion, for a total of 21 points.)

2.  List the inference indicator for each inference in the indicated place.

3.  In working out the premises and the conclusion, remember to make use of information about the type of inference indicator involved, and what that implies about the likely locations of the relevant conclusion, and at least one of the premises.

4.  An important thing to keep in mind is that, in a complex argument, the sub-arguments have to link together in a certain way - namely, every conclusion of a sub-argument, with the exception of the grand, final conclusion, must serve as a premise in some other sub-argument.

5.  Some complex arguments consist of a single chain of sub-arguments.  Often, however, one may have a branched structure, in which at least one of the sub-arguments, rather than involving any new premises, makes use of conclusions from two earlier sub-arguments.  The present argument exhibits the latter sort of structure.

6.  Finally, in examining a passage for possible inference indicators, it really pays to do this very carefully, in order to make sure that you haven't classified as an inference indicator a word or phrase that is not really functioning to point to a specific step in the reasoning, involving a conclusion and at least one relevant premise.  This is important because mistakes in the identification of inference indicators will almost always generate difficulties in working out exactly what the sub-arguments are.
 
 

 Sub-Argument 1  -  Inference indicator  =

Premise 1:
 
 
 
 

Premise 2:
 
 
 
 

Conclusion:
 
 
 
 

Sub-Argument 2  -  Inference indicator  =

Premise 1:
 
 
 
 

Premise 2:
 
 
 
 

Conclusion:
 
 
 
 

Sub-Argument 3 -  Inference indicator  =

Premise 1:
 
 
 
 

Premise 2:
 
 
 
 

Conclusion:
 
 
 
 

Sub-Argument 4 -  Inference indicator  =

Premise 1:
 
 
 
 

Premise 2:
 
 
 
 

Conclusion:
 
 
 
 

Sub-Argument 5  -  Inference indicator  =

Premise 1:
 
 
 
 

Premise 2:
 
 
 
 

Conclusion:
 
 
 
 

Sub-Argument 6 -  Inference indicator  =

Premise 1:
 
 
 
 

Premise 2:
 
 
 
 

Conclusion:
 
 

Sub-Argument 7 -  Inference indicator  =

Premise 1:
 
 
 
 

Premise 2:
 
 
 
 

Conclusion:
 
 
 
 

 Part 3:  Preliminary Assessment of Dubious Parts of the Argument

        When one has worked out the logical structure of an argument, the next stage involves making a preliminary assessment of the argument, searching for potential weak points.  One natural way of tackling this task is, first, to arrange the sub-arguments in such an order that there is a logical progression from the beginning through to the final conclusion, and then, second, to start with the first sub-argument, and to look for cases where the conclusion of the sub-argument seems surprising.  When one finds a surprising conclusion, one can then ask whether one of the premises seems dubious.  If so, one may have located a possible weakness in the argument.  If, on the other hand, the premises seem fine, perhaps there is something wrong with the reasoning.   Does it involve some subtle, or perhaps not-so-subtle, fallacy?

        Surprising conclusions can, of course, sometimes be established by valid arguments on the basis of perfectly plausible premises.  Nevertheless, a striking conclusion that one might well have thought could not be proven is often a good indication that something suspicious is going on.

        The final point is that weaknesses in a argument be either related or unrelated.  Suppose that a premise in a certain sub-argument is implausible.  Then the conclusion of that sub-argument may also be implausible, and if that conclusion is not the final, overall conclusion of the argument as a whole, it will be used as a premise in another sub-argument.  So one will have a second weakness in the argument as a whole.  But this second weakness is not an especially interesting one, because it really just reflects the weakness in the premise in the earlier sub-argument.

        What one really wants to find, then, are the basic weaknesses in a complex argument.  These will be either cases of fallacious reasoning in a sub-argument, or an implausible, independent, premise where a premise is an independent premise only if it is not a conclusion of an earlier sub-argument.

        The argument set out in the above passage contains, I believe, at least three basic weaknesses.  Indicate which three parts of the argument seem to you most problematic - specifying the sub-argument in question, and whether it is the reasoning that seems suspect, or a premise that is not a conclusion of an earlier sub-argument.  (If you think that the reasoning is fallacious, and that an independent premise is implausible, focus on the weakness that seems to you the most serious.)  Then try to say, very briefly, what you think is wrong with the inference, or with the premise, in question.  (2 points for each plausible answer, for a total of 6 points.)
 
 

 Weakness 1:   Sub-Argument Number

Is the reasoning fallacious?  Yes       No

Or is a independent premise  implausible?  If so, which one?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Weakness 2:   Sub-Argument Number

Is the reasoning fallacious?  Yes       No

Or is a independent premise  implausible?  If so, which one?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Weakness 3:   Sub-Argument Number

Is the reasoning fallacious?  Yes       No

Or is a independent premise  implausible?  If so, which one?