Philosophy
...ist, but we do not know them consciously, then we must know and not know. P2) One cannot know and not know. C) innate ideas cannot exist. Since Locke has rejected innate ideas, he must approach the issue of God’s existence from a different direction than Descartes. Locke’s argument for the existence of “an eternal, most powerful, and most knowing being” is known as his cosmological argument. P1) If there is some real being and nothing(ness) cannot produce any real being and there cannot be an infinite regress of finite beings of non-eternal causes, then an eternal being or cause must exist. P2) There is some real being (since I exist) P3) Nothing(ness) cannot produce any real being. P4) There cannot be an infinite regress of finite causes. C) An eternal being must exist Since the first premise is logical and the form is valid any problem with the argument would be limited to contesting the remaining premises. That there is some real being , whether or not it be “I” as Descartes attests, is hard to disbelieve. Locke’s second premise is true. To extend non-eternal causes in an infinite regress is to say that non-eternal causes have been creating each other for an infinite period of time. To say that is to say that finite causes are generated infinitely and they are, in themselves, an infinite being. Or there is no infinite regress. Locke’s fourth premise is true. Therefore the weak point of Locke’s cosmological argument lies in the third premise where he, without solid proof, states that nothing(ness) cannot produce any real being. He claims that this is an intuitively certain principle, though there are those who may doubt. Locke’s cosmological argument has, supposedly, proven the existence of an eternal being. From that Locke aims to establish what sort of being that might be with his argument based on his causal principle. P1) The causal source of anything that is caused must have all the powers of the effect. P2) I was caused by an eternal being. C) Therefore the eternal being must be the most powerful. This argument is unsound due to several reasons. First and most importantly it is stated in an invalid form; the truth of the premises will not necessarily lead to the conclusion. In order for this to be valid Locke would have to add a third premise presuming that every other existing thing was also derived from the same single source. Additionally his causal principle is va...