The Argument from Contingency

[Tathagata]

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".

Ok, I see what your concern is, but I merely explained it poorly.

The reason for the existence of the Universe must be upon something either contingent or non-contingent. But if it were merely contingent upon something else that is contingent, then that could go on ad infinitum. So you'd just end up with a whole string of contingent things which the Universe rests upon. Eventually though, there must be a non-contingent explanation for the whole string of contingent entities, thus necessitating a non-contingent, necessary agent.

Could you link to it?

I was actually just going based on memory. I don't remember where exactly I heard Lane Craig explain it.

 

[jarofthoughts]

The Argument from Contingency

P1: Everything that exists contingently has a reason for its existence.

That's the definition of "contingently", so; accepted.

P2: The universe exists contingently.

How do you know?
What if the universe, in some shape or form, is eternal?

P3: Therefore, the universe has a reason for its existence.

Does not follow since P2 is not accepted.

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.).

Would be faulty even if all the previous points were accepted.
Whatever the universe would be contingent upon does not necessarily have to be non-contingent, nor does it necessarily have to be god.

C: Therefore, God exists.

Hereby refuted.



Next.

 

[Tathagata]

until you ask where god came from.

That is a nonsensical question. God is by definition, eternal and uncaused. To ask that, is to ignore the definition of God. It's sort of like asking "why are bananas orange." Bananas aren't orange so that question contradicts the definition of banana.

 

[McBell]

That is a nonsensical question. God is by definition, eternal and uncaused. To ask that, is to ignore the definition of God. It's sort of like asking "why are bananas orange." Bananas aren't orange so that question contradicts the definition of banana.

Yes, I understand that your argument really boils down to "god is necessary because, by definition, god is necessary, therefore god is necessary."

I find it interesting that you see no problem with that "logic".

In fact, thus far all your "arguments" in this thread have been nothing more than:

"God is {insert something here} because by definition god is {insert something here} therefore god is {insert something here}"
​

 

[PolyHedral]

Eventually though, there must be a non-contingent explanation for the whole string of contingent entities

Why?

 

[Tathagata]

That's the definition of "contingently", so; accepted.

Ok.

How do you know?

I don't. I personally reject Premise 2.

What if the universe, in some shape or form, is eternal?

That's irrelevant. Eternal things can still be contingent, so that point doesn't refute this premise. This argument was actually designed to account for an eternal Universe. I noted that in the original post below the argument.

Does not follow since P2 is not accepted.

Actually, yes it does follow from P2 whether P2 is accepted as true or not. In formal logic, premises can logically follow from one another, even if the premises are false. That's the distinction between "sound" arguments and "valid" arguments.

Would be faulty even if all the previous points were accepted.
Whatever the universe would be contingent upon does not necessarily have to be non-contingent, nor does it necessarily have to be god.

I have already explained why it does, see here:

"The reason for the existence of the Universe must be upon something either contingent or non-contingent. But if it were merely contingent upon something else that is contingent, then that could go on ad infinitum. So you'd just end up with a whole string of contingent things which the Universe rests upon. Eventually though, there must be a non-contingent explanation for the whole string of contingent entities, thus necessitating a non-contingent, necessary agent."

"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."

Hereby refuted.

Next.

False. Far from refuted on your part.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Ok, I see what your concern is, but I merely explained it poorly.

The reason for the existence of the Universe must be upon something either contingent or non-contingent. But if it were merely contingent upon something else that is contingent, then that could go on ad infinitum. So you'd just end up with a whole string of contingent things which the Universe rests upon. Eventually though, there must be a non-contingent explanation for the whole string of contingent entities, thus necessitating a non-contingent, necessary agent.

This logic still does not follow. Why can't the Universe be the result of a "string" of contingent things? Why must there be a non-contingent explanation, and why must that non-contingent agency be any kind of God (or any kind of intelligent agency)?

 

[Tathagata]

Yes, I understand that your argument really boils down to "god is necessary because, by definition, god is necessary, therefore god is necessary."

I find it interesting that you see no problem with that "logic".

It is based on the basic law of logic, the Law of Identity. A = A. God = God.

Btw, here's a hint. Definitions are NOT arguments. Squares are shapes with 4 sides. Is that an invalid argument? NO. That's the flippin definition of a square. Just like God is by definition, an uncaused, non-contingent being.

In fact, thus far all your "arguments" in this thread have been nothing more than:

"God is {insert something here} because by definition god is {insert something here} therefore god is {insert something here}"
​

Please point out the specific logical fallacy I am committing in my arguments. So far all you can say is "there is a problem with that logic." Ok, great, show me specifically what law of logic I have violated and what logical fallacy was committed.

 

[Tathagata]

This logic still does not follow. Why can't the Universe be the result of a "string" of contingent things? Why must there be a non-contingent explanation,

Because the Principle of Sufficient Reason is presumed to be axiomatic. Liebnez and the Greeks saw no problem with this.

and why must that non-contingent agency be any kind of God (or any kind of intelligent agency)?

One explanation I've heard is that it requires an agent with a will to bring a Universe into existence, thus making it a "being." I myself am equally unconvinced.

 

[jarofthoughts]

That's irrelevant. Eternal things can still be contingent, so that point doesn't refute this premise. This argument was actually designed to account for an eternal Universe. I noted that in the original post below the argument.

The problem is that we do not know whether the universe is contingent or non-contingent. It might be the second one, and if so, then the whole string falls apart.

Actually, yes it does follow from P2 whether P2 is accepted as true or not. In formal logic, premises can logically follow from one another, even if the premises are false. That's the distinction between "sound" arguments and "valid" arguments.

But seeing P2 is not accepted as true and seeing as C is dependent on P2 being true, that means C cannot be accepted as true either.

False. Far from refuted on your part.

C is hereby duly refuted.

 

[McBell]

Btw, here's a hint. Definitions are NOT arguments. Squares are shapes with 4 sides. Is that an invalid argument? NO. That's the flippin definition of a square. Just like God is by definition, an uncaused, non-contingent being.

You forgot several hundred other self serving definitions of 'god'.

Please point out the specific logical fallacy I am committing in my arguments. So far all you can say is "there is a problem with that logic." Ok, great, show me specifically what law of logic I have violated and what logical fallacy was committed.

You are begging the question.

God exists.
How do you know?
Cause the very definition of god says he exists.

God is necassary
How do you know?
Cause the very definition of god says he is necessary.

God is uncreated
How do you know?
Cause the very definition of god says he is uncreated.

God is eternal
How do you know?
Cause the very definition of god says he is eternal.

 

[Masourga]

God is a necessary and non-contingent being by definition.

But what if the object of your definition is a fantasy? Meaning - you're assuming God exists for this definition to actually even carry any weight - which is crap.

That's the only reason substituting "Big-foot" doesn't work for you - because your assumption is automatically in the other direction - that "Big-foot" IS a fantasy. So... you see where an atheist is going to have trouble with your logic, right? Atheists see God as you see Big-foot.

 

[McBell]

But what if the object of your definition is a fantasy? Meaning - you're assuming God exists for this definition to actually even carry any weight - which is crap.

That's the only reason substituting "Big-foot" doesn't work for you - because your assumption is automatically in the other direction - that "Big-foot" IS a fantasy. So... you see where an atheist is going to have trouble with your logic, right? Atheists see God as you see Big-foot.

To be fair, I do not know that Tathagata actually agrees with the argument.

Seems to me that he is playing the devil's advocate in this thread.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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.

If you need this to make logical sense, I'm sure you'll rationalize it as such. Don't insult thinking people with this tripe though.

 

[Penumbra]

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.

.

P4 is flawed, as some others have pointed out. So, the conclusion is not valid.

The main reason is that P4 is arbitrary. That which is non-contingent and necessary is not necessarily a "being".

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.

.

These things are arguably necessary, but certainly not sufficient, for the definition of God. Consciousness must be present as well, or there's no reason to call it a god.

Mathematics, or whatever the most fundamental physical aspects of the universe are, can be substituted with fewer assumptions involved.

That is a nonsensical question. God is by definition, eternal and uncaused. To ask that, is to ignore the definition of God. It's sort of like asking "why are bananas orange." Bananas aren't orange so that question contradicts the definition of banana.

Yes, but again, these are necessary but not sufficient aspects of a creator god. Consciousness is needed as well.

This argument makes the same mistake all cosmological arguments do. It adds an unnecessary and unexplained step into the logic. Instead of suggesting that God is eternal and uncaused, and that it created the universe, one could simply suggest that some aspect of the universe must be eternal and uncaused.

 

[Tathagata]

You are begging the question.

God exists.
How do you know?
Cause the very definition of god says he exists.

I never made that argument. That's a strawman.

God is necassary
How do you know?
Cause the very definition of god says he is necessary.

Actually, God is by definition non-contingent, and thus by extension of being non-contingent he is necessary.

God is uncreated
How do you know?
Cause the very definition of god says he is uncreated.

Yes, this is true. There's no fallacy there.

God is eternal
How do you know?
Cause the very definition of god says he is eternal.

Yes, that is true to. God is by definition an eternal being. If it's not eternal, then it's not a God.

So again, you have still yet to point out specifically the logical error that I am committing. I asked you to name me the exact logical fallacy that has been committed. You have yet to do so.

 

[Tathagata]

But what if the object of your definition is a fantasy? Meaning - you're assuming God exists for this definition to actually even carry any weight - which is crap.

No, actually I'm not. Just because something has a definition doesn't mean it presumes existence. For example, just because a unicorn, by definition is a horse with one horn doesn't mean that I am presuming existence.

That's the only reason substituting "Big-foot" doesn't work for you - because your assumption is automatically in the other direction - that "Big-foot" IS a fantasy.

No, it's because big-foot is not defined as a non-contingent being. Big-foot and God don't share the same ontological properties.

So... you see where an atheist is going to have trouble with your logic, right? Atheists see God as you see Big-foot.

I suggest you learn to read. My original post noted that I am a Buddhist Atheist and I included in the post itself that I personally reject the argument. I said that from the very beginning. I was testing to see if the Atheists here are justified in their Atheism and see if they could successfully tear down a strong Theist argument for God. You have failed.

 

[McBell]

So again, you have still yet to point out specifically the logical error that I am committing. I asked you to name me the exact logical fallacy that has been committed. You have yet to do so.

You ability to hide behind your self serving "definition" of god does not negate the fallacies you use.

Now since it is obvious you are not interested in addressing the fallacies you use and instead are content with hiding behind your "definition" of god, I see no reason to continue interaction with you on this particular topic.

Have a nice day.

 

[freelight]

Hello all,

This is my first post to the forum here,

I found this particular discussion thread when doing an internet search. We are hashing this out on another discussion board, but found some good material here - It was noted that a conundrum exists concerning IF the 'non-conginent' is a 'being' (however we define that in a 'personal' sense perhaps) or is more or less an impersonal force, principle, or creative intelligence. However, if it is the essence or source of all intelligence/consciousness...it would be the origin of 'personality' and all other individual beings or entities - just some food for thought.


Namaste,


paul

 

[LuisDantas]

Is it just me, or does the argument sound like a specific form of circular reasoning?