A very brief demonstration of the Contingency Argument

That is what is called "goblygook." x = a - b, but x = a and x = b.

Timeless factor
1) The unlimited makes limit possible.

2) Imagine that everything which exists ended in its own limit: then it would be no limits, since every single thing will be the whole universe.

3) Thus, the unlimited is necessary for the limit to exist, and we know that limited things exist. Therefore, the unlimited must exist too.

4) It seems vain, acknowledging this axiom, that, being nature unlimited, atomists represent it as being finitely divided.

5) The universe can't be limited and unlimited at the same time (Big-bang theory is nonsensical). Each limit presupposes a wider one "ad infinitum".

6) It is also inconceivable that an infinite being started to be infinite, as far as you can only be infinite absolutely, not progressively.

7) And it sounds even more ridiculous to expect that which is infinite in extension is eternal too, since if it has not any beginning in time, then it shouldn't exist in space either.

8) Thus, the time factor won't help in order to progress from a finite set of things to an infinite whole.

9) We need a timeless factor, that is, God.

Greetings.

Daniel.

So, you're saying that infinity exists..... and you call it God?

Wow man..... deep

This "God" may exist, but what sort of God is this?

I personally like this idea of God. Infinity, completion: everything and anything. Life and death, black and white, humanity and machine is all part of God. Since every moment in time rests on chance and random outcomes, there is an infinite number of possibilities as to what would happen next - and this God would be all-encompassing, existing in futures that we ourselves (or at least, this development of our "self") would not percieve.

Thought-provoking. I certainly prefer the idea of an infinite, non-animal/person God than the common god of folklore and tradition.

"However, if there is no Necessary Being (i.e., One which inexistence would imply a contradiction), there wouldn't be any reason for Something to exist rather than Nothing, and nothing would exist at all."

But there would be no reason for something to NOT exist, even if there were no Necessary being. The arguement assumes that nonexistance is a more basic or natural state than existance.

God, The Big Bang, and a beginning or a Creation all imply that at some time there was nothing physical. ie, the Bibical void.

So kick this around a while.

The void cannot be shown to have ever existed as far as I know. The existence of a void (an area outside of space-time) cannot, at least for now, be shown to ever have existed.

Therefore nothing probably never existed. Since it can be shown that something exists (by its effects on other things) it may well be possible that something always has existed.

If something has always existed it is not necessary to create anything. Then it only must evolve. The evolution of Universes in general can satisfactorily be explained by Physics, Probabilities and Mechanics.

So Daniel, I aver that the assumption that God exists is is irrational as it is in effect, introducing an element of existence that cannot be shown to exist.

Since the idea that God exists is irrational, therefore God does not exist.

Happy thoughts, M

Mech:

I am not sure why because something has always existed - it is not necessary to create anything.

I am not also sure why - because something has always existed it must evolve.

I am not alos sure how the void or God can be dissolved simply because you cannot find evidence for it. I am also not sure how you find evidence of something outside of your universe.

Although I agree that God cannot be shown to exist. And I also agree that the contingency argument is poo poo. Even if it proves the need for a God - it does nothing to describe him. I am not a big fan of 10 leaky buckets being one good bucket so any other arguments seem ad hoc.

But that does not strengthen three weaknesses I see in your 'happy thoughts'.

TF

Re: A very brief demonstration of the Contingency Argument
irichc


All that exists in Nature is contingent, since its non-existence doesn't imply any contradiction.

However, if there is no Necessary Being (i.e., One which inexistence would imply a contradiction), there wouldn't be any reason for Something to exist rather than Nothing, and nothing would exist at all.

But Something exists. Thus, it would be contradictory that something real and effective had (if we exclude God) and had not (if we take the being for itself) the same reasons for existence as for non-existence.

Therefore, God, the Necessary Being, exists.


RP:

Okay, let's assume for the sake of argument that God does exist.

Two additional arguments then follow:

Everything is a manifestation of the omniscient and omnipotent God. Therefore human autonomy and freedom and moral responsiblity are subsumed in God, as well. Therefore they do not exist independent of God and thus are effectively rendered moot.

Human history is awash in unending horror stories. The human condition itself is bursting at the seams with pain and suffering. In just the 20th centruy alone, for example, over 680 million children aged 5 years and younger died in agony from starvation; and every 24 hours day in and day out another 18,000 innocent toddlers and babies and infants join. Then there are the ceaseless natural disasters like hurricanes and floods and volcanic eruptions and tidal waves and earthquakes. So this God, if he does, in fact, exist, sure as hell does not give a crap about what happens to any of us, right?

Randall Patrick

I usually get out of this word salad by defining "existence" as "to be in relationship". What matters is the "nature of the relationship".

So I can call myself an atheist but still say "God exists" because I am still (trivially) in relationship with "the concept" which I hold to be a psychological crutch for others. In other words "existence" is about expectancies of outcomes from relationships.

RP:

I am not sure that you can claim that simply because an opnipotent being gives 'freedom' to another being that that being does not have freedom.

I think you are confusing two types of contingency:

1) Contingent for its being: As in the Aritotilean efficient cause.

2) Contingent for its existence: a sort of continual contingency - like sun light for the continual existence of plant life.

These do not necessarily coexist. God, even myself, can create a being, such as my son, who is dependant on me for his existence, but not dependant on me for his continual existance. (Say after he learns to feed himself anyway )

However, the problem you seem to be grappeling with is theodicy - or lack of theodicy as it were. Evil is a serious problem for the theist and one that seems at least very difficult to get rid of, if not impossible logically for the theist to rid his beliefs of.

The beliver must see natural disasters as either not evil or as an amount of evil that can be outwighed by other portions of nature that can retain God'd omnibenevolence.

One way is Augustines lack of natural evil, where evil is only in the intentions of man. Natural disasters and accidents are not evil because they are intentionless. Hunger and starvation can be seen as evil only in the action (or inaction) of others. Because there is evil in the world can be seen as the natural results of others. God, then, to retain our ability to be free, must allow these evils.

However, one step the theist misses is that free will and free good must be better than unfree or determined good. However, I can see when I coerce my son into good, it is not as good as when he does things of his own accord and decisions.

I am not saying this is air tight - nor easy (18000 deaths per day can't be easy) just possible to defend.
TF

thethinkfactory:

I am not sure that you can claim that simply because an opnipotent being gives 'freedom' to another being that that being does not have freedom.


RP:

It is God's omniscience that obviates human freedom and autonomy. If God is all knowing [and what self-respecting God would not be] that means he is priyy to everything. That is what all-knowing means. And if there is nothing he is note cognizant of then that means he is fully aware of everything we ever have or will think, feel and do.


thethinkfactory:


However, the problem you seem to be grappeling with is theodicy - or lack of theodicy as it were. Evil is a serious problem for the theist and one that seems at least very difficult to get rid of, if not impossible logically for the theist to rid his beliefs of.


RP:

My own views are far more radical than that. If there is no God than good and evil can never be more than existenial vantage points. And that means that every moral value and conviction is essentially interchangable with any other value or conviction. Therre is no logical or rational or authentic or right way to know how to live. There is only what happens to seem reasonable to you at the time. That which you can rationalize or simply get away with.


thethinkfactory:


One way is Augustines lack of natural evil, where evil is only in the intentions of man. Natural disasters and accidents are not evil because they are intentionless. Hunger and starvation can be seen as evil only in the action (or inaction) of others. Because there is evil in the world can be seen as the natural results of others. God, then, to retain our ability to be free, must allow these evils.


RP:


God created the planet such that earthquakes and volcanoes and hurricanes etc occur naturally. If that does not denote God's intentions what else does.


THETHINKFACTORY:


I am not saying this is air tight - nor easy (18000 deaths per day can't be easy) just possible to defend.
TF[/quote]


RP:


Anything can be defended when you posit God. You simply postulate, in turn, the good Lord works in mysterious ways. But what all defenses of God share in common over the past 3000 years is that not a single, solitary one of them have ever demonstrated the actual existence of this God---empirically, phenomonologically, experientially, scientifically. All we have is a bunch of abstract theology telling us that if we assume this, that or another God must exist. And there are hundreds and hundreds of True Belivers all claming there is a God and that their God happens to be the God.

Right?

Randall Patrick

Thinkfactory, re your post of Jun 13 1:28PM

OK I'll try it.

First point--
IF something has always existed it cannot be created simply because it already exists.

For instance if an artist "Creates" a picture it is a bit of a stretch to call it a "Creation" as the raw energies and materials that are employed to manufacture the picture already existed. In this case the artist merely caused the pigments and energies to evolve in an intelligently directed manner. The Universe similarly evolves due to the various laws of physics. A naturally directed manner

Second point-- It must evolve simply because the interaction between time, mass, and energies cause changes in the apparent configurations of Our Observable Universe. The raw materials were probably always there.

The study of the "evolution" of our universe is merely the deducing and recording of the chronological order of change. This study is limited severely simply by the nature of the interactions of "light" with mass and time.

Third point, I did not say that the "void" was dissolved. I merely said that there is no good evidence that "nothing" (the void) ever existed. The varying configurations of a natural universe can be competently explained by a good "mechanic". Or physicist if you prefer.

Have some more Happy Thoughts, M

The arguement makes no sense. There is no reason that the universe could not exist without a necessary being. It just doesn't HAVE to. It COULD by chance just happen to exist, without necessity. We are also talking about a necessary BEING, not a material thing. The universe is material. The idea that a necessary being must exist b\c it has the quality of necessary existance (Anselm and Descartes) is incorrect as well.