Theodore Schick Jr and the What Caused God? atheisic objection: another example of atheistic misdirections and fallacies in philosophy of religion

 In a previous post, I argued how an atheist philosopher (Michael Martin) intentionally misrepresented the cosmological argument for God's existence, in a debate with a Christian apologist.

These kind of atheistic misdirections and fallacies are very common, and this is exactly what we'd expect if atheism is false. Given that metaphysical naturalism (the foundation of contemporary atheism) is not based on true premises, it cannot refute the best counterarguments except through a consistent misrepresentation of them (and of other contrary evidence). It's mostly grounded on myths and fallacies, which are perpetuated in order to avoid that the believers in naturalism learn and correctly interpret the actual refutations of naturalism. (All the ideologies have that kind of self-protective mechanism in order to survive among their hard-core followers)

In my previous post, I argued that atheist/naturalist ideologues consistently present the statement "Everything has a cause" as the basic premise of the traditional cosmological argument for God's existence. Having misrepresented the actual argument, they commonly proceed to refute such argument arguing "If everyting has a cause, then God has a cause too. Therefore, it's impossible that God be the first uncaused cause, so the cosmological argument is self-refuting"

Obviously, an atheist ideologue arguing like that simply cannot understand the fact that no one of the best philosophical theists defending the cosmological argument has ever defended it on the grounds of the "everything has a cause" premise. Despite of this fact, atheist ideologues continue to use such fallacy. This is evidence that the cognitive faculties of these people don't function properly or that they're intentionally dishonest (or both things)

To use another factual example of how an atheist philosopher commits such fallacy, please read this article by atheist and naturalist philosopher Theodore Schick Jr., published in the leading website of the internet materialistic and naturalistic believers, Infidels.org.

In that article, Schick Jr. comments that "The traditional first-cause argument rests on the assumption that everything has a cause. Since nothing can cause itself, and since the string of causes can't be infinitely long, there must be a first cause, namely, god. This argument received its classic formulation at the bands of the great Roman Catholic philosopher, Thomas Aquinas "(Emphasis in blue added)

But this is simply, radically, factually and demostrably false. As has commented philosopher Edward Feser: "In fact, not one of the best-known defenders of the Cosmological Argument in the history of philosophy ever gave this stupid “everything has a cause” argument—not Plato, not Aristotle, not al-Ghazali, not Maimonides, not Thomas Aquinas, not John Duns Scotus, not G.W. Leibniz, not Samuel Clarke, not Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, not Mortimer Adler, not William Lane Craig, not Richard Swinburne. And not anyone else either, as far as I know. Perhaps... you think that when trying to refute some of history’s greatest minds, a good strategy would be to attack an argument none of them ever defended" (emphasis in blue added)

Even some atheists, unaware of their solid and consistent ignorance, arrogantly ask: "If everything has cause, what caused God?" This ridiculous atheist question (intented to be a fast and smart refutation of the cosmological argument) has been called "sophomoric" (or typical of colleges' sophomores) by Christian philosopher William Lane Craig (a contemporary and sophisticated philosophical defender of the cosmological argument):

So you can ask: if not one of the best philosophical defenders of the cosmological argument has argued from the "Everything has a cause" premise, why the hell atheist ideologues keep repeating such straighforward lie? Is it intellectual honest? Is it rational?

 The answer, according to my experience and opinion, is twofold: 1)As a rule, the cognitive faculties of hard-core materialists and naturalists don't function properly, that is, their mind is essentially irrational, illogical, incapable of thinking straight as a consequence (possibly) of spiritual and psychological factors. And 2)As a rule, they're intellectually dishonest (note that 2 could be a consequence of 1, since an irrational person tend to be impaired to recognize objective values like honesty).

Let's to examine Schick Jr.'s reply to Thomas Aquinas' cosmological argument. Schick Jr. quotes directly, from an Aquinas' work, this formulation of the cosmological argument:

In the world of sensible things, we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known ... in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go to infinity, because . . . the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause.... Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate, cause . . . therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name god.

Please, read carefully and objectively (two or three times, or more if you need it) the above Aquinas' quotation. Now, I ask to my dear readers the following straightforward question: In the above Aquinas' text in blue, where the hell is Aquinas saying that "evertyhing has a cause"?

The most inept, irrational, ignorant, stupid person would easily see that in no place of that quotation the premise "evertyhing has a cause" (or that "everything is caused by something other than itself") is mentioned, defended or implied at all.

In fact, Aquinas explicitly limits his premise to the "world of sensible things" (and therefore, of contingent things), which doesn't include God since God is not a "sensible thing" (i.e. we cannot "see" God, He's not an object of our sensory experience, therefore is not part of the "world of sensible things"). So, he's not arguing from "everything", but specifically and only from the known order of efficient causes existent in the world of sensible things.

As has commented philosopher Edward Feser in his lastest book on Aquinas (an excellent introduction to Aquinas' philosophy): "Let us note first (and yet again) that Aquinas does not say, here or elsewhere, that "everything has a cause"; rather, he begins the argument by saying that there are efficient causes and that nothing can cause itself. The implication is that if something is caused, then it is something outside the thing being caused that is doing the causing... Aquinas is committed in particular to the principle of causality, according to which that which comes into being, or more generally, that which is contingent, must have a cause. Needless to say, this is not the same thing as to claim that everything without exception has a cause" (Aquinas, pp 81-82. Emphasis in the original)

However, a "professional philosopher" like Schick Jr. ineptly "constructs" the above Aquinas' argument in this way:

Saint Thomas's argument is this:

1. Everything is caused by something other than itself
2. Therefore the universe was caused by something other than itself.
3. The string of causes cannot be infinitely long.
4. If the string of causes cannot be infinitely long, there must be a first cause.
5. Therefore, there must be a first cause, namely god.

As seen, premise 1 of Schick Jr.'s straw man only exist in Schick Jr.'s (and other atheist believers) imagination. It's pure fiction.

Having constructed such straw man, Schick Jr. proceeds to easily demolish it: "The most telling criticism of this argument is that it is self-refuting. If everything has a cause other than itself, then god must have a cause other than himself. But if god has a cause other than himself, he cannot be the first cause. So if the first premise is true, the conclusion must be false"

Bravo!. What amazing display of philosophical sophistication, intellectual power, historical knowledge of classical philosophy and interpretative charity. A typical atheist masterpiece.

In future posts, I'll present more evidence of atheist philosophers attacking the (imaginary) "everyhting has a cause" premise of the cosmological argument.

You'll learn that contemporary atheism, grounded on metaphysical naturalism, is a faith-based ideology constructed on misrepresentations, contantly repeated lies and logical fallacies like the ones mentioned here. And you'll understand such fallacies are almost a constitutive part of the naturalistic worldview because such worldview is (when examined philosophically and critically in depth) extraordinarly weak, and cannot be defended rationally.

And don't waste your time trying to explain this to these atheist individuals. Intellectually, most of them simply cannot understand the difference between the (imaginary) "Everything has a cause", and the actual premise of the traditional versions of the cosmological argument (e.g. Whatever begins to exist has a cause or Whatever is moved is moved by another).

The hard-core atheistic materialist's impaired cognitive faculties and irrationality prevent him to reach to this level of conceptual, logical and semantical distinction.