The Argument from Contingency

[McBell]

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

as I stated in post #24:

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}"​

 

[nilsz]

While Bigfoot doesn't really seem a good candidate for the uncaused cause that allowed everything to unfold, the argument tells very little about the attributes of this God. It doesn't say anything about whether it is an intelligent being with intentions. Why should this uncaused cause not be a set of simple laws of physics?

 

[idav]

While Bigfoot doesn't really seem a good candidate for the uncaused cause that allowed everything to unfold, the argument tells very little about the attributes of this God. It doesn't say anything about whether it is an intelligent being with intentions. Why should this uncaused cause not be a set of simple laws of physics?

Simple laws of physics? Hardly cause the universe is quite complex.

 

[nilsz]

"Simple" laws that allow a more complex universe to unfold, like the mathematical expression that defines the Mandelbrot fractal.

 

[idav]

"Simple" laws that allow a more complex universe to unfold, like the mathematical expression that defines the Mandelbrot fractal.

Fair enough.

 

[cottage]

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.

.

The major premise (P1) is itself a contingent statement, that is to say it is possibly true or possibly false. Therefore the minor premise P3 does not follow necessarily.

Now if, for the sake of argument, we were to assume that P1 is true then God, as the Supreme Being (P4), is rendered absurd or logically impossible. Leibniz said "No fact can be real or existing and no statement true unless it has a sufficient reason why it should be thus and not otherwise". The world isn’t a necessary aspect of God, and while God (or an eternally existing world) doesn’t demand an explanation for existing, the finite world of creatures does require an explanation or a reason for its creation. And this is especially the case if God is to be analysed in terms of a personal, intelligent being that “freely chose to bring the world into being” and did so that his creation could “glorify him”, in the words of Bill Craig. According to Christian theism, God the creator wants a personal relationship with his creation, and there is logically only one agent that can profit or gain from this arrangement – and it is logically impossible for it to be the formerly non-existent creatures!

For if God is the Supreme Being, necessarily sufficient in all things, then he cannot want something he does not have – and a relationship with his own creation is self-evidently a contradiction. And on that account there can be no God.