3. False Assumptions
We shall discuss two examples of wrong definitions, one of First Cause the other of First Being. In the first example, First Cause is defined with the help of a two-place concept of cause: x causes y (xCy) and a one place concept: y is caused (Cdy). In the second example First Being uses the two-place concept of x is a sufficient reason for y (xSRy). Both definitions are connected with the problem of evil because it follows from them that God is the cause or the sufficient reason for all evil things.
In this definition the first part, i.e., that a first cause is uncaused is understandable. Otherwise, it could only be a relative first cause. However, the second part is problematic. It says that a first cause causes everything that is caused. Thus if God is defined (described) as a first cause then it is claimed that God is all-causing in the sense that God causes everything that is caused. Thus the following consequence 3C1 is derivable from definition 3D2:
It can easily be shown by counterexamples that this consequence 3C1 is untenable, and therefore the definition 3D2 must be false:
Counterexample 1: Assume y is a destructive weapon caused (constructed) by some humans, then it follows that God caused it.
Counterexample 2: Assume y is a morally bad acting monster caused (created) by genetic engineering of some humans, then it follows that God caused it...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.