Joseph C. Schmid & Daniel Linford, "Existential Inertia and Classical Theistic Proofs"
Springer, 2022
Do Phones Prove God? | Existential Inertia and Classical Theistic Proofs
Phones exist. This much is obvious. But phones don’t exist independently. They depend for their existence on various environmental conditions like temperature and pressure. They also depend on their parts being held together in appropriate ways. There’s the screen, the battery, and a constellation of other parts that need to be arranged just right for the phone to exist. But those parts don’t exist independently either. They also depend for their existence on environmental conditions and whatever holds together their various parts. And those further parts depend for their existence on more fundamental layers of reality, which in turn depend on still more fundamental layers, which in turn…
Can this chain of dependence proceed to infinity? Plausibly not. If everything receives or borrows its existence from without, we end up with received existence without any source from which that existence is received. And that doesn’t seem right. We’re left to conclude that there’s some fundamental layer of reality that doesn’t depend for its existence on further conditions but upon which non-fundamental things depend. What is this fundamental reality like?
Return again to the phone. It’s a dependent thing. But phones aren’t the only dependent things. Seemingly all composite things depend for their existence on various conditions both internal and external to them. Whether it’s people, platypuses, planets, or plutonium, composite things depend on their parts being held together in appropriate ways. Whatever is independent, then, cannot be composite. So: fundamental reality is independent and non-composite (or simple). Since things in spacetime seem to be composites of various sorts—composites of distinct properties, for instance—fundamental reality must transcend spacetime. We’ve therefore reached a fundamental, simple, transcendent reality upon which everything composite depends. And that sounds suspiciously like God.
This “phone argument” is a classical theistic proof—i.e., an argument for the existence of the God of classical theism. According to classical theism, God not only has humdrum divine attributes like omnipotence, omniscience, and moral perfection but also more exotic ones like simplicity, timelessness, and immutability. Classical theistic proofs like the phone argument abound, and they take center stage in my recently published book Existential Inertia and Classical Theistic Proofs (Springer, co-authored with Daniel Linford). In the book, we tackle the phone argument head on, albeit in a different guise.
The book has three main aims. The first aim is to offer a cutting-edge critical assessment of seven popular classical theistic proofs: Aquinas’s First Way, Aquinas’s De Ente proof, and Edward Feser’s Aristotelian, Neo-Platonic, Augustinian, Thomistic, and Rationalist proofs. Each proof begins with some datum—e.g., change, composition, abstract objects, or contingency—and concludes to the existence of an unchangeable, simple, necessary, infinite divine intellect that explains the relevant datum. And while many books exist that are critical of theistic arguments, few focus specifically on classical theistic proofs like the ones just mentioned.
The second aim is to offer the first systematic, book-length treatment of the existential inertia thesis. Roughly, this thesis says that temporal things (like phones!) persist in existence without being continuously sustained or “held” in existence moment-by-moment by an outside cause. We not only clarify and systematize the thesis but also defend it from objections and develop new arguments in its favor.
The third and final aim is to develop new arguments against classical theism. These arguments should interest not only non-theists but also non-classical theists who champion rival models of God. As we emphasize in the book, the goal of such arguments is not to tear down classical theism but to serve it.
The book intersects many areas of philosophy. In addition to philosophy of religion, it’s a work in metaphysics, philosophy of time, and philosophy of physics. For instance, we discuss at length relativity theory and its metaphysical implications, causal simultaneity, the nature and explanation of persistence, and more besides. While the book can be quite technical at various points, we believe the technicality is rewarding. Few things are greater in life than exploring the fundamental nature of reality. Our ultimate purpose is to further that exploration.
How to get the book
Now that I’ve enticed you to read the book, you’re definitely thinking, “I need this book immediately. In fact, I need 30 copies. Where can I get it?” Here’s how:
It’s available on Amazon! The soft cover is much cheaper. It’s also available on the book’s official Springer page, where you can read the preface and more details about the book.
You may have institutional access to the book! Many libraries have purchased Springer eBook packages which give their patrons access to downloadable PDF and EPUB versions of the book. So check with your local library or university to see if you have access to a physical and/or digital copy. (You can also ask about an interlibrary loan if your library doesn’t have a physical copy!)
About the authors
I—Joe, or, more bombastically, “Joseph C. Schmid”—have published many papers in philosophy of religion and metaphysics. I also self-published a book The Majesty of Reason: A Short Guide to Critical Thinking in Philosophy. I even have the greatest YouTube channel of all time, Majesty of Reason, wherein I make philosophy lecture videos and host discussions with philosophers. Finally, I just applied to various philosophy PhD programs. Fingers crossed!
My co-author is Dr. Daniel Linford. He recently received his PhD in Philosophy from Purdue University. He’s published a ton of awesome articles in philosophy of physics, philosophy of religion, and more besides.
More information…
More information about the book can be found in my blog post here. Enjoy!
Author: Joe Schmid (josephschmid4@gmail.com)
Firstly you conflate existence with an assemblage.
Then you conflate intermolecular forces with environmental factors.
The environment does not hold things together, say, for example, a rock. A rock will continue to be a rock even if it is in space with virtually no environmental factors acting upon it.
The rock has its own independent assemblage and its own independent existence., which is why rocks move through space for very long periods of time.
Sorry Joe, I don't find your existential arguments to be well formed.
Very enjoyable read! Agree at many points. Classical search for agency. But any agentless state of affairs could have the same fundamental properties. Lewis and many worlds...some with causal bedrocks, some without. Any possible state of affairs that harbored analytic beings would, as a block, be intelligible..even a world composed of nothing but red balloons and flying pigs. That property of inertia is VERY interesting. Will get your book!