“I should maintain that there is a contingent being, it follows of necessity that there is a necessary being.” (Copplestone)
In his argument Coplestone concludes that the actual existence of contingent beings means that there is a necessary being.
On the other hand it was this argument from necessity which caused conflict between Copplestone and Russell. Russell argued that the term necessary is only applicable to analytic truths; this means statements such as ‘all bachelors are male’ and this statement is referred to as necessary de dicto. However he believed that the statement that God’s existence is necessarily true, it is not necessary de dicto true, because God may not exist. It may be false to say that God does not exist but it not a logical contradiction to state that God does not exist; therefore it is not analytical statement. Just has Kant had argued, Russell believed that ‘all existential statements are synthetic.’
Coplestone’s argument also focused on the argument from sufficient reason, this is a complete or to explanation for the way that something is as it is. Coplestone said that God was God’s own sufficient reason, that he has aseity and therefore he is self-generating . He argued that things within the universe are not their own sufficient reason but do have cause for their existence and this is God. Copplestone believed that the universe is continent and requires a total explanation for its existence. He thought that the universe is untellable without God. However while Russell agrees that the key turning points in the debate is the principle of sufficient reason., however Russell disagreed that the only explanation is God and that God is an adequate explanation.
But when is an explanation adequate? Suppose I am about to make a flame with a match. You may say that the adequate explanation of that is that I rub it on the box.
However Copplestone concluded that an adequate explanation is one which “nothing more can be added.” He believes that nothing more can be added to an explanation of God. In contrast Russell argued that you cannot find an adequate explanation for the universe as a whole is not possible, it is beyond the reach of human beings. He argued that the explanation of the universe is not necessary, as the universe is simply there, it is “Brute Fact.” Russell simply didn’t believe that the idea of cause applied to the universe and therefore we should not bother looking for what does not exist. “I should say that the universe is just there and that’s all.”
In the conclusion of the debate, Coplestone acknowledges the point that was later argued by Hick, that for the argument to succeed it, “Begs the question”. This means that for an explanation of the existence of the universe is to be found, a person needs to be open minded in order to participate in the debate.
If one does not wish to embark on the path which leads to the affirmation of transcendent being, one has to deny the reality of the problem and assert that things ‘just are’ and that the existential problem in question is just a pseudo-problem.
Copplestone recognized that the two were approaching the question from a completely different perspective and, in a way, playing a different game. He made a very significant point at the end of the debate.
If one refuses even to sit down at the chessboard and make a move, one cannot, of course, be checkmated.
Copplestone highlights the main conclusion of the debate, it is not possible to convince someone of God’s existence with this argument if they are not interested in asking how we got here or why we are here. However it is important also to recognise that without asking such questions and seeking explanation one cannot claim victory i.e. that God does not exist either.
