- The existence of an effect which requires the operation of a co-existent cause implies the co-existence of that cause.
- Whatever exists either does, or does not, need a cause of its existence at every moment of its existence.
- A contingent being is one that needs a cause of its continuing existence at every moment of its existence.
- No contingent being causes the existence of any other contingent being.
- Contingent beings exist in this world and endure in a temporal frame, with a beginning and an end.
The (faulty)
conclusion is that there exists a cause of the existence of contingent beings, namely a
supreme being, which might commonly be referred to as "God". Why is that faulty?
Premises 1, 2, and 5 are either
self-evident, or true
beyond a reasonable doubt. Premise 4 seems to accord well with
common sense and empirical observation. The problem premise is 3, which asserts without basis that we contingent beings depend on a cause for our continued existence. In physics, we observe the principle of
inertia: objects in motion tend to stay in motion, and objects at rest tend to remain at rest, until acted on by external forces. It's not hard to imagine a similar principle of "
existential inertia", whereby an object in existence tends to stay in existence, until some outside force interferes with its existence.