• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Argument from Contingency

Tathagata

Freethinker
I have seen many Atheists here who seem to have an unwarranted justification for their Atheism because their reasons for disbelief are actually flawed or countered by other sophisticated arguments from Theist apologists and philosophers. I will present one argument FOR God that I find to be respectable, interesting, and quite effective.

The Argument from Contingency

P1: Everything that exists contingently has a reason for its existence.
P2: The universe exists contingently.
P3: Therefore, the universe has a reason for its existence.
P4: If the universe has a reason for its existence then that reason is God (a non-contingent, necessary being, i.e. a being that logically could not have failed to exist.).
C: Therefore, God exists.

Explanation of the argument:

This is also known as the "Modal Cosmological Argument," but it doesn't suffer the same weakness as the Kalam Cosmological Argument because it doesn't rely on the premise that the Universe had a beginning, and is actually compatible with an eternal Universe (however, I can actually poke holes in the argument I presented, but I won't do it here cause I want to see if you guys can come up with objections.)

Contingent things are not necessary and could have failed to exist. Their existence is always dependent on something else. The argument proposes that everything in the Universe is contingent and even the Universe itself is contingent, thus could have failed to exist. And if the Universe is contingent, then it requires explanation for it's existence which must be either another thing that is contingent, or something that is non-contingent. Thus, the ultimate explanation for the existence of all things, the Universe, is a necessary, non-contingent being which could not have failed to exist.

.
 

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
Since P4 is certainly not known to be true, and possibly isn't even testable, here's a replacement: If the universe has a reason for its existence then that reason is maths.
And I surely do not have to demonstrate how it is impossible for mathematics not to exist, do I? :p
 
Last edited:

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
Actually "thought" or "grammar" make way more sense than "God" in that proof. Things can exist without "God". They can't exist without thought.
 

Tathagata

Freethinker
Since P4 is certainly not known to be true, and possibly isn't even testable,

Actually, if you accept P2, then you MUST accept P4 because it logically follows based on the rules of Modal Logic.

Here's why. If the Universe is contingent and could have failed to exist, yet does exist, then there needs to be a reason for it's existence and that can only be something that is necessary and couldn't have failed to exist, in which the Universe rests contingently upon.
 

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
Yes, but that isn't all of what P4 states. It states the additional assumption that that thing is God, which is untestable and not known to be true.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Actually, if you accept P2, then you MUST accept P4 because it logically follows based on the rules of Modal Logic.

Here's why. If the Universe is contingent and could have failed to exist, yet does exist, then there needs to be a reason for it's existence and that can only be something that is necessary and couldn't have failed to exist, in which the Universe rests contingently upon.
Interesting how you can replace the word "God" in that argument with just about anything you want and it is still just as logically sound.

Try using 'Bigfoot' for example.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Yes, but that isn't all of what P4 states. It states the additional assumption that that thing is God, which is untestable and not known to be true.
Thus the reason replacing the word "god" with "bigfoot" does not alter the argument in any way.

Well, almost any way.
Some people will allow their passion to rule reason and whine about insulting god....
 

Tathagata

Freethinker
Interesting how you can replace the word "God" in that argument with just about anything you want and it is still just as logically sound.

Try using 'Bigfoot' for example.

False. This is exactly the type of reasoning I was criticizing in my initial post. God is a necessary and non-contingent being by definition. Bigfoot is not. Bigfoot is a contingent being.


.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Define "reason" as referred to in "reason for it's existence". That's a very subjective statement.

Also, there's a huge logical gap between "the Universe has a reason for it's existence" and "then that reason is God". There's absolutely no logic or rationale connecting those two claims, and they do not remotely lead into each other.
 

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
False. This is exactly the type of reasoning I was criticizing in my initial post. God is a necessary and non-contingent being by definition. Bigfoot is not. Bigfoot is a contingent being.
But maths is not contingent either, and so it is impossible to distinguish the two possibilities.
 

walmul

Member
Everything which exists, exists because of a action or reaction which took place just before the object, article, new being etc, came into existance; in other words something, or someone, or a independant or dependant action caused whatever came afterward, from that perspective something or someone pre existed to enable whatever came after, call it god, gods, creator, creators, intelligence etc, it does not matter what, point is, "something" cannot come from "nothing".

Walmul.
 

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
Everything which exists, exists because of a action or reaction which took place just before the object, article, new being etc, came into existance; in other words something, or someone, or a independant or dependant action caused whatever came afterward, from that perspective something or someone pre existed to enable whatever came after, call it god, gods, creator, creators, intelligence etc, it does not matter what, point is, "something" cannot come from "nothing".

Walmul.
Aka "God"="I don't know". It's a sign to mark a strange loop in the logic of cause and effect. Used in this sense, "God" is no longer a reference to an existent thing or a being. It is a placeholder for a logical paradox.

This same paradox also disproves "God's" existence when "God" is meant to refer to an existent thing or being.
 

Tathagata

Freethinker
Define "reason" as referred to in "reason for it's existence". That's a very subjective statement.

It is referring to the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

"The principle of sufficient reason states that anything that happens does so for a reason: no state of affairs can obtain, and no statement can be true unless there is sufficient reason why it should not be otherwise.

- For every entity x, if x exists, then there is a sufficient explanation why x exists.
- For every event e, if e occurs, then there is a sufficient explanation why e occurs.
- For every proposition p, if p is true, then there is a sufficient explanation why p is true."

Principle of sufficient reason - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Also, there's a huge logical gap between "the Universe has a reason for it's existence" and "then that reason is God". There's absolutely no logic or rationale connecting those two claims, and they do not remotely lead into each other.

I already addressed that here, though you have also raised another point which I will get to next.

"And if the Universe is contingent, then it requires explanation for it's existence which must be either another thing that is contingent, or something that is non-contingent. Thus, the ultimate explanation for the existence of all things, the Universe, is a necessary, non-contingent being which could not have failed to exist."

The part that may be perplexing is why this non-contingent necessary agent has to be a "being." The reason for that is, and I think as explained by Lane Craig as well, is that it requires something with a will to be the cause of bringing a Universe into existence. I also remain unconvinced, but I think Lane Craig has a better explanation for this position than I just gave.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Everything which exists, exists because of a action or reaction which took place just before the object, article, new being etc, came into existance; in other words something, or someone, or a independant or dependant action caused whatever came afterward, from that perspective something or someone pre existed to enable whatever came after, call it god, gods, creator, creators, intelligence etc, it does not matter what, point is, "something" cannot come from "nothing".

Walmul.

Except the Universe, as far as we know, did not come from "nothing". We have no idea currently whether the Universe came from anything, much less what that thing was.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
"And if the Universe is contingent, then it requires explanation for it's existence which must be either another thing that is contingent, or something that is non-contingent. Thus, the ultimate explanation for the existence of all things, the Universe, is a necessary, non-contingent being which could not have failed to exist."
I think this logic is still flawed. Once again, there is a logical gap between "it must be something either contingent or non-contingent" and "it was a non-contingent being that could not have failed to exist".

The part that may be perplexing is why this non-contingent necessary agent has to be a "being." The reason for that is, and I think as explained by Lane Craig as well, is that it requires something with a will to be the cause of bringing a Universe into existence. I also remain unconvinced, but I think Lane Craig has a better explanation for this position than I just gave.
Could you link to it?
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
False. This is exactly the type of reasoning I was criticizing in my initial post. God is a necessary and non-contingent being by definition. Bigfoot is not. Bigfoot is a contingent being.


.
If you say so.
But your merry-go-round ride is getting rather tedious, don't you think?
 

AfterGlow

Invisible Puffle
until you ask where god came from.
Then it matters quite a bit.
Good point.

Also, even if we accept the premise of the argument as sound, having "God" as the answer does not, in actuality, yield a sound conclusion. For that to happen we would need to have a concept of "God" that is logically consistent with what we already know of the universe.
Religious people will take this argument and use it as justification for the existence of their own form of God, be it Christian, Muslim, Asatru, Shinto or Hindu. But this argument doesn't allow that justification, so ultimately we're just in the dark as we ever were and so, from a philosophical standpoint, the argument must be discarded as redundant.
 
Top