Skip to main content

Samuel Clarke's Cosmological Argument

Formulation​

  1. There are dependent beings.
  2. Every dependent being depends on either itself or another being.
  3. Nothing can depend on itself.
  4. Therefore, every dependent being depends on another being. (1, 2, 3)
  5. The series of dependent beings cannot be infinite.
  6. If the series of dependent beings cannot be infinite, then there must be an independent being on which all dependent beings depend.
  7. Therefore, there is an independent being on which all dependent beings depend. (4, 5, 6)

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.

Contingence and Dependence​

The conclusion of the argument does not necessarily entail that the independent being is necessary. It could be that the independent being is contingent, but not dependent. The equivocation between contingency and dependence is not necessarily true. At best, it is highly contested. Many would deny it based on the type of the Principle of Sufficient Reasoning (PSR) that is invoked.

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.

In fact, granting this fallacy, we can easily construct an argument for evolution:

  1. Each organism has an ancestor.
  2. Therefore, there is a single ancestor of all organisms.