Philosophy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for those interested in the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
I read the following argument for the existence of a creator. Basically, If there is no creator then a person caused his own existence or nothing caused his existence.
Both consequences of the implication are empirically false; No person caused his own existence and a person does not come to existence out of nothing (without a cause). Therefore, the premise that there is no creator is false.
Has this argument been proposed before in the literature? What are the objections to such argument?
If every person has a creator, it does not follow that there is a single creator that creates every person. Theoretically every person might have a separate, different creator. It also does not follow that if there is a single creator, that creator is God : I know you don't say that it is but the mistake is often made.
If there is a single creator, your problem simply moves up a level. Either nothing caused the creator's existence or the creator caused the creator's own existence. The latter would make the creator 'causa sui', self-created. How the creator could cause the existence of the creator is not apparent.
The simplest answer is that the Universe exists for reasons currently beyond our empirical understanding. The implicit suggestion for this argument is not logical, because it is merely insinuating that a lack of knowledge is evidence for one particular (biased) solution.
This is more often referred to as the God of the Gaps.
Claiming that there must be a creator because otherwise something came from nothing means that you are still claiming that something came from nothing (The creator from nothing.) and if the claim further progresses by saying that the creator simply must have always existed, then a more immediate explanation (one step further back) would be that the universe always existed, instead.
To choose one over the other for these reasons would just be up to an individuals biases, since they lack any foundation in logic.
As MarkOxford pointed out in his comment, the argument appears that it could be classified as a cosmological argument. I can't say that I have ever come across a formulation of cosmological argument that closely resembles yours, although I am not terribly knowledgeable when it comes to them. The ones I am 'familiar' with are Aquinas' version, the Leibnizian version, the Kalām argument, the modal cosmological argument by Brian Leftow, and this cosmological argument due to Richard Gale and Alexander Pruss (a literal genius, by the way). I suspect there are many others.
As far as objections to cosmological arguments, these are extraordinarily numerous, ranging from abysmal to formidable, so I don't think it would be worth going into detail in such a short space. By the way, where did you find this argument?
