Friday, November 06, 2009

The universe is contignent


Atheists ant the universe to be non continent (necesary) because then it can't be created by God. But they totally unwilling to accept where the logic of he universe leads us. They want the necessary universe to be a matter of stipulation but they are not willing to even take a stab at proving it. All they do is whine one suggests that they have to actually prove soemthing to demonstrate that.

Here's one of my arguments about it.

The atheists problems with necessity and contingency are just ludicrous. To me equating God's necessity with an unproved idea, or demanding prof that the universe is continent it just idiotic. totally idiotic. it's like saying "prove that tables are things to put things on."

they also confuse a prori with circular reasoning.

when they go "you are defining God into existence" then are just confusing the understanding of a prori reasoning with circular reasoning.

That would be making the mistake of saying "if you believe that ordeal numbers have to be sequential then you are arguing in a circle."

You say "Ordinal numbers are sequential, sequences are ordered and ordinal means "in order" so it is sequential by definition."

they say "O definition? you are just defining that into existence."

Necessity/contingency has a different trajectory in the cosmological argument than it does in the ontological argument. I am concerned with the cosmological version here more than the other.

I think the difference is that between ontological necessity and cosmological necessity. Ultimately, as Hartshorne argument, they are the same, they both come together at some point where God is concerned.

Proving God has to be necessary or impossible.

The little chart that I made (I can't do tables here) demonstrates the necessity of necessity.

these are the most basic aspects of being that cannot be reduced to any more basic sets other than "being" and "Nothingness." They can be subdivided infinitely but they can't be reduced any more.


you can't get more basic than that, except "exist" or "not exist." But in terms of what mode of existing, that's it. Does X exist necessarily, contingently? whatever. Two non existent categories, impossible and fictional. function meaning it could exist but doesn't.

Necessity: being itself.

contingent: rocks, trees, people, the sun, physical laws, every single thing that exists in nature.

impossible: square circles

fiction: purple dolphins, Superman, little Orphan Annie, Alfred E. Newman, George Bush's intelligence.

Every cause if necessary to its effect but in the over all scheme is also contingent. The only real stopping point where something is wholly necessary and not contingent is being itself. let me know if you find an exception.

The universe is obviously contingent because every single thing in it is contingent.Moreover the concept of the universe itself is synonymous with contingency.

(1) universe is nature, nature is the realm in which the physical universe coheres.

(2) nature id temporal.

all definitions of nature in dictionaries include the idea of temporal.

(3) nature is based upon cause and effect

the term "nature" comes from the Latin Natura meaning Life from life. This is the realm in which life produces more life. That is contingent, it is cause and effect, and it is definitely in time and not transcendent of time.

(5) Every atheist argument agaisnt the supernatural assumes that the only form of existence has to be temporal and concrete and in the realm of nature.

(6) both temporal and C/e imply contingency. Because everything temporal is contingent; its contingent upon time and works by cause an effect which is by definition contingency.

Argument II: the proof.

To disprove this argument the atheist must demonstrate a part of the universe that is not contingent. They can't do this they can't show one single aspect of the universe that is not contingent.

Argument III: They just show That the universe had to be that there is no way it could have not come to be, and that it must be exactly as it is.

contingent means something can case or fail to exist, and that it depends for its existence upon prior conditions.

Unless the atheists can show that the universe had to be no matter what the prior conditions of it were like they can't show it's necessary, becuase that's what necessary is. Since the universe had to have cause and effect, and it's temporal then they can't do that.

The atheist answer on this is to deny that it matters where logic takes us.


tinythinker said...

It's the slippery-slope principle.

A rational, intelligent person can readily agree that there must be some eternal source of causation without any qualms. So why deny that or try to obfuscate the issue?

There could be any number of issues, but a big factor is the idea that such a source and foundation for existence shares similarity with various descriptions of God.

It doesn't have to agree with other descriptions of God, and doesn't have to be called God, but is just too close for some people.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

A rational, intelligent person can readily agree that there must be some eternal source of causation without any qualms. So why deny that or try to obfuscate the issue?

you tell me. atheist do that every single time I make any God argument that involves the universe being contingent. They demand that it not be contingent every time!

why do you think the arguemnt is slipery slope? My arguemnt?

bite your tounge!

tinythinker said...

The slipper slope is that if they accept the first premise (there must be an eternal source of causation) they are on the slippery slope towards believing in God. Accepting one small part of the picture can lead to admitting another small part, then considering another.

tinythinker said...

Addendum: Whether or not one considers a slippery slope argument to be a fallacy doesn't stop others from believing in or acting on it.

bossmanham said...

Nice argument here. I'm dealing with an atheist who insists the universe could have come about for no reason. It's the most ridiculous position I've ever heard.