In the following paper, I will outline Samuel Clarke’s “Modern Formulation of the Cosmological Argument” and restate some of the points that he makes. Samuel Clarke’s argument for the existence of God states that “There has existed from eternity some one unchangeable and independent being” (37). The argument follows a logical flow and can be better understood when the structure is laid out and the argument reconstructed.
Clarke begins his argument with a use of disjunctive syllogism, a form of valid logical reasoning that proposes two outcomes, denies one, and thus proves the other to be true. Clarke’s premise states that one of the two following statements must be true: either there has always existed one independent being that was the cause of all other beings that exist or ever existed, or else there have forever existed a series of dependent beings that caused one another. He calls the second option impossible for the reason that such a series cannot be the being that has existed from eternity because by definition it can have no external cause, and no internal cause can cause the whole series. The latter part of the premise is stated as false, making the first part true. Hence, an independent being exists. Clarke also uses another mode of argumentation called reductio ad absurdum, which argues that a point must be accepted by deriving absurdity from its denial. Clarke actually uses the word “absurd” to describe the theory of an infinite succession of dependent beings, and constructs premises to show why. “Tis plain this whole series of beings can have no cause from without of its existence because in it are supposed to be included all things that are or ever were in the universe” (37). This means that this series could not have been caused by a source outside of itself because the only thing that exists
