Notes on Aquinas’ Arguments from Causation and

Contingency.

I. The Argument from Causation

1. There is a system of causes and effects in the universe.

2. There are only 3 possible ways to explain how this came
about:
a. The universe caused itself.
b. The universe is the result of a causal chain stretching
infinitely back into the past.
c. The universe was caused by a first cause.
3. (a) is impossible; a thing cannot cause itself:
(i) Causes must exist before their effects.
(ii) So, in order to cause itself, the universe would have to
have existed before it existed.
(iii) This is impossible.
4. (b) is impossible:
(i) If we say the universe is the result of an infinite
chain we in effect remove the first cause.
(ii) But if we remove the first cause, we remove all its
effects.
(iii) So, without a first cause, there would be no causes
or effects today.
(iv) Since there are causes and effects today, an
infinite chain is impossible.
5. Since both (a) and (b) are impossible, (c) must be true:
There was a first cause: God.
Problems for the Causation Argument
1. At best, it gives us only a first cause—it gives us no
other characteristics
commonly associated with god.

2. If nothing can cause itself, what caused God?

3. Aquinas says that there cannot be an infinite series

of causes, because this would “take away” the first
cause. Edwards responds that the defender of the
infinite chain does not “take away” any event in the
causal sequence. He just denies that any one cause is
the first—there is always another cause prior to any
cause.

4. Could the universe have been uncaused? Aquinas

doesn’t consider this possibility. One might think that
he had good reason for this: we simply don’t see
events occur that lack causes. But if the universe
came into existence at a point, space and time both
began at this point. That is, there was no before this
point, as time itself did not exist. Causation too might
come into being with space and time (one reason to
think this is that causation—moving from cause to
effect-- takes time, and if time did not exist before the
universe, then neither could causation). On this view,
it makes sense to think of causation once the universe
exists, but causation is not possible while the universe
of space and time do not exist. Thus the universe
could not have had a cause.
 There are also apparently instances of quantum
particles popping in and out of existence without
cause. Maybe the universe is similar.

5. While it makes sense to ask for the cause of an

individual event, there is the question about whether it
makes sense to ask for the cause of a whole series
Edwards offers the example of the Eskimos, each
of whom has their own individual reason for being in
Manhattan. Once you’ve heard each of the individual
reasons, it doesn’t make sense to say “But I’m looking
for the cause of the whole series (group) of you being
here.” The presence of the group is explained by each
individual explanation. Likewise, the presence of the
causal series is explained by explaining the cause of
each individual event in the series.
II. The Argument from Contingency
1. Some things that exist are contingent (capable of
not existing: they come into being & are
destroyed).

2. Anything which is capable of not existing, at one

time or other does not exist.

3. So, if ALL things are capable of not existing there

was a time when nothing existed in the universe.

4. But if so, then, nothing would now exist. (Because,

if there were a time when nothing existed, there
would be nothing that could bring anything else into
existence).

5. But things do exist now, so it’s not true that ALL

things are capable of not existing.

6. So something must exist which cannot not exist:

which must exist necessarily, and that something we
call God.

Reductio ad Absurdum form:

Essentially, the hypothesis that all things are contingent is
(supposedly) shown to lead to a false conclusion (that
nothing exists today). Granted this, the hypothesis too
must be rejected as false.
Problems for the Contingency Argument
1. At best, it gives us only a necessary being—it gives
us no other characteristics commonly associated with
god.

2. There is a problem with Aquinas’ move from (i)

each contingent thing did not exist at some point to (ii)
so if all things were contingent there would have been
a time when all contingent things didn’t exist.

3. Aquinas, at best, establishes that at least one

necessary being exists—but he does not show that
there exists only one (there could be many).

4. It isn’t exactly clear what a necessary being is

anyway. We understand the concept of a contingent
being, since we have experience of such beings. But
we have no experience of necessary beings.
( This is a problem because the contingency argument
is supposed to explain how the universe came to exist.
But if the explanation traces back to a necessary being,
and if we don’t understand this concept, then it isn’t a
very useful explanation.)

5. There is the question of whether the existence of

contingent beings/events needs to be explained in
terms of a necessary being. See p.90 for more on this.
Some Points of Comparison between the Two
Arguments

1. The contingency argument is not vulnerable to the

objection “who caused god.” God, being a necessary
being has always existed and thus does not need a
cause for him to begin existing.

2. The contingency argument, if successful,

establishes that god exists now—the causation
argument doesn’t.

3. The contingency argument rests on the concept of a

necessary being—which may not be a concept we
really understand—the causation argument does not.

4. Both arguments rest on the alleged impossibility of

an infinite sequence of causes. And maybe there
really cannot be a causal sequence that stretches
infinitely into the past-- But Aquinas’s argument
against this is not very convincing. So we are left
without an argument against it.

5. It may strike us as bizarre to think that the universe

could cause itself, or that an sequence of causes could
stretch back infinitely and have no first cause. But it
seems equally bizarre to accept Aquinas’s preferred
solution: that a being has existed eternally who had no
beginning, and for whose existence there is no cause.