Copleston argues that God exists because objects or events exist. According to his argument, no object or experience can exist on its own without the intervention or instigation of another being. There must be an external reason that causes the existence. This reason is usually beyond the universe, and he refers to it as the necessary being; God. Copleston states that “to explain existence we must come to a being who contains within itself the reason for its own existence. That is to say, a being which can not exist.” ( Copleston, & Russell, 1948). The cause of the universe and the reason behind this existence is attributed to God.
In his response, Russell argues that God does not exist because he sees no meaning in referring to another being as “contingent” and he does not ascribe to the idea of a necessary being. He refutes the choice of words with which Copleston uses to fortify his argument of the existence of God. In his refutation, he argues that terms such as “necessary being” can only be applied to analytical propositions and if the self-existence of the being is contradictory to deny. Russell further asserts his denial for God’s existence because he believes that it is impossible that there is a being whose primary significance involves existence that is analytic. Furthermore, he believes that the universe exists and that there is no reason for its existence ( Copleston, & Russell, 1948). It is therefore useless to try and find the reason for the existence of the universe.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
From what I have read, the main point of disagreement between Russell and Copleston is the existence of a cause and reason for the universe. They argue whether or not objects, experiences, behavior, or events have a cause and whether there is a supreme being that modulates the existence of the reason for the cause. The argument is anchored on trying to explain why things have certain inherent characteristics that make them distinct or similar to other certain things. In Copleston’s view, there is a cause and reason beyond the universe that is responsible for existence. In contrast to this view, Russell believes that there is no explanation or reason for the existence of the cause, and that existence cannot be credited to a “contingent” or “necessary” being ( Copleston, & Russell, 1948).
In other words, if Russell agreed with Copleston that there is a cause and reason beyond the universe for existence for beings or events, that without a necessary being the universe is unintelligible, and that objects cannot form or explain themselves, then it would follow that there God exists. This would mean that God is the Supreme Being who is the cause of every object and the universe. However, if Russell is right, every object and the universe can exist on their own, and there is no supreme cause to determine the cause or reason for the existence of the universe.
Based only on what Copleston and Russell say, neither party won the argument as the two men had to agree to disagree on some issues in the discussion. The universe as referred to in the argument does not allude to a name of some supreme being but rather points out to a state of affairs which are contingent on other supreme beings. However, the explanation to support the claims that a Supreme Being is responsible for the cause and reasons of the universe is not well depicted. The argument, therefore, ends in a deadlock, with both men agreeing or refuting some claims made by the other party. A discussion on what would be the resulting effect on the contingent beings is the supreme being is eliminated from the equation might have helped to derive a one-sided conclusion.
References
Copleston, F. C., & Russell, B. (1948). A Debate on the Existence of God . Harper & Row .
