 |
vol. title: vol. period: 1882 pages in vol.: 174 |
< God. (continued from page 14-13) >
foes than to ourselves. His recourse was as usual to the Universal Law of Causation. Every existence must have a cause, and the universe being an existence must necessarily have a cause, and the cause of the universe is God. This was the line of argument he persued. We replied, whether, the law of causation which had been pressed into service was not suicidal to his cause; whether it did not deprive the cause of the universe of an essential attribute of Divinity, of being itself uncaused and uncreated. Then came the hitch. Then commenced the real difficulty of the case, a difficulty which the world has tried in vain to overcome. Being pressed hard, the theologian replied that the law of causation applied only to phenomena within our knowledge, and that to extend it to whatever beyond our knowledge would be a logical blunder. This is indeed a novel application of the law in question: The exposition though specious, is as will be shewn below a contrivance devised to escape from imminent danger. But a short examination will expose the fallacy.
It is asserted by the opposite side that God is the cause of the universe, and contended that He is not himself subject to causation, as he is beyond our knowledge. Now we have to inquire whether we can make an assertion respecting what is beyond the universe and human knowledge, and whether in making such proposition knowledge is not implied
Referring to Mill’s Logic on the nature and import of propositions, we find that every proposition is an assertion of a connection between the attributes connoted by the terms when they are connotative, or between the objects denoted by the terms when they are simply denotative. In the proposition, “Man is mortal,” a connection is asserted between the attributes connoted by “man,” and those connoted by “mortal,” or in other words, the proposition means that the phenomenon of “man” is accompanied by the phenomenon of “mortal.” To say that one phenomenon is accompanied by or co-exists with another, knowledge of both the phenomena is indispensable. We cannot say that Socrates is mortal, if we have no knowledge of Socrates, mortality or both. For asserting that qninine cures fever, knowledge of the medicinal preparation called quinine and of the morbid state of health called fever, is an essential condition. The child that asserts the propositions that fire burns, and the sun shines, must have had a knowledge of the phenomena represented by the terms. The absence of such knowledge makes the proposition unintelligible and absurd. Humpty Dumpty is abracadabra. This is a proposition of the terms of which we are ignorant, and it gives rise to no state of consciousness. Therefore to state a connection between two phenomena, knowledge of the phenomena is indispensable; otherwise the assertion will be unintelligible. Applying this test of knowledge to the proposition that God is the cause of the universe, made by those who deny our know- <... continues on page 14-15 >