The Doctrine of Divine Conservation (Or: Why Everything That Exists Depends on God's Existence)
The Name of Love
Far Right Nutjob
So, I hope to post here a series of essays on Natural Theology, both to generate interest in the topic on this forum and get my own thoughts out there. Disclaimer: My own religious beliefs are Roman Catholic Christian and my philosophy tends towards Thomism as interpreted by contemporary analytic philosophers like Edward Feser, David S. Oderberg, and Brian Davies.
Too often, online debates about theism versus atheism are sidelined into debates about which side has the burden of proof and whether atheism is a “belief” or a “lack of belief,” about whether godlessness or religion are immoral, etc. These topics, I feel, are obfuscations about what I take the theism versus atheism debate to be. In truth, the question of God is a question of the nature of existence: can something exist without God’s conserving it at all times, if only in principle? Or does existence itself presuppose a divine being conserving something at all times?
Let us spell out the debate in these terms: the debate is between those who believe in the Doctrine of Divine Conservation (a group that includes those to adhere to the religions like Christianity and Islam, as well as philosophical theists in the vein of Aristotle or Plotinus) and those who believe in the Doctrine of Existential Inertia (a group that includes all atheists, “hard” or “soft”, all agnostics, and a great many deists). Let us go over each theory.
The Doctrine of Divine Conservation (DDC) holds that the world could not exist for an instant, even in principle, apart from the continuous sustaining action of some first cause, which I will henceforth refer to as “God” for convenience. St. Thomas Aquinas described this doctrine like this: “[T]he being of every creature depends on God, so that not for a moment could it subsist, but would fall into nothingness were it not kept in being by the operation of the Divine power.” This line of thought is repeated by Scriptural passages such as Wisdom 11:25 (“How could a thing remain, unless you willed it; or be preserved, had it not been called forth by you?”), Hebrews 1:3 (Christ “sustains all things by his mighty word”), and Colossians 1:17 (“in him all things hold together.”) as well as The Catechism of the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council. Suffice to say, the DDC is essential to Christian orthodoxy. You can also find the DDC within Islam, Judaism, and certain pagan philosophies.
By contrast, skeptics of theism generally and Christian orthodoxy specifically are committed to the Doctrine of Existential Inertia (DEI). According to DEI, the world of contingent things, once it exists, will tend to continue in existence on its own at least until something positively acts to destroy it. It thus has no need to be conserved in being by God.
It is my contention that even so-called “soft” or “lack of belief” atheists and agnostics implicitly adhere to the DEI insofar as they hold that the world does not in principle need God to exist. Certainly, they (in theory) allow that God could be a cause, but they would reject the idea that created existence, in principle, requires God’s existence. There is not some in-between position here. Either you believe in the DDC or in the DEI. If you refuse to take up either position, then you are not being serious. A debate is between two sides, two rival worldviews, not between one worldview and one psychological condition like “lack of belief.”
Having framed the debate properly, I will now demonstrate the implausibility of DEI and the impossibility of natural objects possessing existential inertia.
First, there’s no reason we should assume that material objects have existential inertia. What internal mechanism could possibly cause a given material object to exist at any given moment? Some might be tempted to state that what causes this is some kind of physical law, similar to Newton’s concept of inertia in motion. Certainly, the law of conservation of mass seems to imply that matter in a closed system cannot be created or destroyed. However, the nature of laws of physics is a matter of controversy. If one holds that they are somehow something external to matter guiding the operations of matter, then we cannot really say that objects have existential inertia, but that they are kept into being by some law of physics, an external force, and not found within the matter itself. If you hold that laws of physics are merely abstractions of matter’s nature (as an Aristotelian like myself would say) or regularities in nature (like a Humean would say), then physical laws would be mere descriptions of what matter does and could not be an explanation for a thing’s existence.
Perhaps, one could say, existence is a property of things that are currently existing, and what it means to exist could be found within the essence of currently existing things, similar to how redness is found within apples or wetness is found within water. This line of reasoning is erroneous because these properties and the essences from which these properties are derived presuppose the existence of the objects in question. If an object’s properties depend on its existence, and its existence is one of its properties, we have a vicious regress that fails to explain anything. This shows that existence cannot be merely one property among others a given object possesses. Nor would it do to say that a thing could preserve its own existence at any given time once it does exist, for the same reason.
What if existence wasn’t some property that a thing had, but comprised the entirety of what it was? What if a thing’s essence was just existence itself? Such a hypothetical being would not need any outside force to keep it in existence because to be that thing would be uncaused rather than self-caused, and would thus avoid the vicious regression inherent to self-causation. But then this hypothetical, uncaused being would not just have self-sufficient existence, but an absolutely necessary existence. Such a being could never fail to exist by definition, because what it is to be that thing is just to exist. There would be nothing within it that would allow it to go out of existence. Furthermore, such a being would be incapable of existing in multiplicity. If some thing’s essence and existence are not really distinct, then they are identical. Now, say we had two such beings that have a self-sufficient existence, one labelled A and one labelled B. What would differentiate them? They couldn’t have any additional qualities, because then neither would be just existence itself, but “existence itself plus some differentiating quality.” So, supposing this uncaused being could exist, there would only be one of them. None of the natural objects we know of have these qualities, so none of them could be this uncaused being.
From this analysis, we can show that, at the very least, existential inertia could not exist within any known part of material objects. But we can go even further to show that the DDC must be true. Consider, as I’ve mentioned above, that, even though there is a real distinction between the essence of a given material object and its existence, the essence of a thing could not exist apart from the existence of that thing. A thing whose essence and existence are distinct must then have its existence imparted onto it by some external cause, since, as I explained above, a thing cannot be the cause of its own existence because self-causation requires existence to be a property of a thing, and properties always presuppose the existence of the things they are properties of. This would lead to the above vicious regress.
Now, if a given material object has a concurrent cause C, then C’s existence must also be explained. And if C is something whose existence and essence are really distinct, then its existence must be explained in some further cause B. And so on and so forth. This infinite regress demands a first cause because this is not speaking of temporal causal series, but hierarchical causal series, which must end in a first cause in order to be fully explained. The reason for this is that each part of the series presupposes some concurrent cause in its existence. An infinite regress here would be like a house without foundation, an utter affront to reason. This first cause could only be something whose essence just is existence, and this is what we would call “God.”
Now, God would have the qualities of something whose essence is just existence itself, meaning it would be absolutely necessary and utterly unique. But if God is utterly unique, that would mean that only he would be just existence itself and everything else that existed would have distinct essences distinct from their existences and would rely on God for their existence at any given moment. So, God is the unique, necessarily existing, uncaused cause of everything other than himself.
There is more to be said about this (such as talking about the different divine attributes), but suffice to say, I think I’ve sufficient established the DDC and refuted the DEI. Given this, it would seem that it is the hardline theists that have the credible, rational position, not the “lack of belief” atheists.
I cite Edward Feser's paper "Existential Inertia and the Five Ways" as well as his book Five Proofs of the Existence of God as my two main sources. His website is here. Feedback is appreciated.
Too often, online debates about theism versus atheism are sidelined into debates about which side has the burden of proof and whether atheism is a “belief” or a “lack of belief,” about whether godlessness or religion are immoral, etc. These topics, I feel, are obfuscations about what I take the theism versus atheism debate to be. In truth, the question of God is a question of the nature of existence: can something exist without God’s conserving it at all times, if only in principle? Or does existence itself presuppose a divine being conserving something at all times?
Let us spell out the debate in these terms: the debate is between those who believe in the Doctrine of Divine Conservation (a group that includes those to adhere to the religions like Christianity and Islam, as well as philosophical theists in the vein of Aristotle or Plotinus) and those who believe in the Doctrine of Existential Inertia (a group that includes all atheists, “hard” or “soft”, all agnostics, and a great many deists). Let us go over each theory.
The Doctrine of Divine Conservation (DDC) holds that the world could not exist for an instant, even in principle, apart from the continuous sustaining action of some first cause, which I will henceforth refer to as “God” for convenience. St. Thomas Aquinas described this doctrine like this: “[T]he being of every creature depends on God, so that not for a moment could it subsist, but would fall into nothingness were it not kept in being by the operation of the Divine power.” This line of thought is repeated by Scriptural passages such as Wisdom 11:25 (“How could a thing remain, unless you willed it; or be preserved, had it not been called forth by you?”), Hebrews 1:3 (Christ “sustains all things by his mighty word”), and Colossians 1:17 (“in him all things hold together.”) as well as The Catechism of the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council. Suffice to say, the DDC is essential to Christian orthodoxy. You can also find the DDC within Islam, Judaism, and certain pagan philosophies.
By contrast, skeptics of theism generally and Christian orthodoxy specifically are committed to the Doctrine of Existential Inertia (DEI). According to DEI, the world of contingent things, once it exists, will tend to continue in existence on its own at least until something positively acts to destroy it. It thus has no need to be conserved in being by God.
It is my contention that even so-called “soft” or “lack of belief” atheists and agnostics implicitly adhere to the DEI insofar as they hold that the world does not in principle need God to exist. Certainly, they (in theory) allow that God could be a cause, but they would reject the idea that created existence, in principle, requires God’s existence. There is not some in-between position here. Either you believe in the DDC or in the DEI. If you refuse to take up either position, then you are not being serious. A debate is between two sides, two rival worldviews, not between one worldview and one psychological condition like “lack of belief.”
Having framed the debate properly, I will now demonstrate the implausibility of DEI and the impossibility of natural objects possessing existential inertia.
First, there’s no reason we should assume that material objects have existential inertia. What internal mechanism could possibly cause a given material object to exist at any given moment? Some might be tempted to state that what causes this is some kind of physical law, similar to Newton’s concept of inertia in motion. Certainly, the law of conservation of mass seems to imply that matter in a closed system cannot be created or destroyed. However, the nature of laws of physics is a matter of controversy. If one holds that they are somehow something external to matter guiding the operations of matter, then we cannot really say that objects have existential inertia, but that they are kept into being by some law of physics, an external force, and not found within the matter itself. If you hold that laws of physics are merely abstractions of matter’s nature (as an Aristotelian like myself would say) or regularities in nature (like a Humean would say), then physical laws would be mere descriptions of what matter does and could not be an explanation for a thing’s existence.
Perhaps, one could say, existence is a property of things that are currently existing, and what it means to exist could be found within the essence of currently existing things, similar to how redness is found within apples or wetness is found within water. This line of reasoning is erroneous because these properties and the essences from which these properties are derived presuppose the existence of the objects in question. If an object’s properties depend on its existence, and its existence is one of its properties, we have a vicious regress that fails to explain anything. This shows that existence cannot be merely one property among others a given object possesses. Nor would it do to say that a thing could preserve its own existence at any given time once it does exist, for the same reason.
What if existence wasn’t some property that a thing had, but comprised the entirety of what it was? What if a thing’s essence was just existence itself? Such a hypothetical being would not need any outside force to keep it in existence because to be that thing would be uncaused rather than self-caused, and would thus avoid the vicious regression inherent to self-causation. But then this hypothetical, uncaused being would not just have self-sufficient existence, but an absolutely necessary existence. Such a being could never fail to exist by definition, because what it is to be that thing is just to exist. There would be nothing within it that would allow it to go out of existence. Furthermore, such a being would be incapable of existing in multiplicity. If some thing’s essence and existence are not really distinct, then they are identical. Now, say we had two such beings that have a self-sufficient existence, one labelled A and one labelled B. What would differentiate them? They couldn’t have any additional qualities, because then neither would be just existence itself, but “existence itself plus some differentiating quality.” So, supposing this uncaused being could exist, there would only be one of them. None of the natural objects we know of have these qualities, so none of them could be this uncaused being.
From this analysis, we can show that, at the very least, existential inertia could not exist within any known part of material objects. But we can go even further to show that the DDC must be true. Consider, as I’ve mentioned above, that, even though there is a real distinction between the essence of a given material object and its existence, the essence of a thing could not exist apart from the existence of that thing. A thing whose essence and existence are distinct must then have its existence imparted onto it by some external cause, since, as I explained above, a thing cannot be the cause of its own existence because self-causation requires existence to be a property of a thing, and properties always presuppose the existence of the things they are properties of. This would lead to the above vicious regress.
Now, if a given material object has a concurrent cause C, then C’s existence must also be explained. And if C is something whose existence and essence are really distinct, then its existence must be explained in some further cause B. And so on and so forth. This infinite regress demands a first cause because this is not speaking of temporal causal series, but hierarchical causal series, which must end in a first cause in order to be fully explained. The reason for this is that each part of the series presupposes some concurrent cause in its existence. An infinite regress here would be like a house without foundation, an utter affront to reason. This first cause could only be something whose essence just is existence, and this is what we would call “God.”
Now, God would have the qualities of something whose essence is just existence itself, meaning it would be absolutely necessary and utterly unique. But if God is utterly unique, that would mean that only he would be just existence itself and everything else that existed would have distinct essences distinct from their existences and would rely on God for their existence at any given moment. So, God is the unique, necessarily existing, uncaused cause of everything other than himself.
There is more to be said about this (such as talking about the different divine attributes), but suffice to say, I think I’ve sufficient established the DDC and refuted the DEI. Given this, it would seem that it is the hardline theists that have the credible, rational position, not the “lack of belief” atheists.
I cite Edward Feser's paper "Existential Inertia and the Five Ways" as well as his book Five Proofs of the Existence of God as my two main sources. His website is here. Feedback is appreciated.
Last edited: