Skip to main content

Samuel Clarke's Cosmological Argument

Formulation​

  1. There is a series of dependent beings.
  2. Dependent beings either depend on themselves, or depend on another being.
  3. Nothing can depend on itself.
  4. Therefore, dependent beings depend on another being. (1, 2)
  5. There cannot be an infinite regress of dependent beings.
  6. Therefore, there must be a necessary being that is not dependent on anything else (God). (4, 5)

Synchronic and Diachronic Dependency​

One important distinction in Clarke's argument is the distinction between synchronic and diachronic dependency:

  • Synchronic dependency refers to when a being depends on another being at the same time, where it is "sustained" by another being.
  • Diachronic dependency refers to when a being was brought into existence by another being. For example, a child is diachronically dependent on its parents.

Given synchronic dependency, we can invoke the principle of existential inertia, similar to the previous arguments.

Given diachronic dependency, it is unclear whether Premise 5 holds. Each member is not deriving its existence or causal power from without. One would need to invoke another argument, like the Kalam, to show the impossibility of an infinite regress of diachronically dependent beings.

Quantifier Shifts​

Suppose we grant that each chain of dependent beings terminate in an independent being.

This does not mean that there is a single independent being that is the source of all dependent beings.

One easy way to see this is to consider changing the topic of the argument:

  1. Each human has a mother.
  2. Therefore, there is a single mother of all humans.