The Argument for God's Existence from Contingency

[Ringtone]

The Argument from Contingency

1. If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.
2. The Universe—the collection of beings in space and time—exists.
3. Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the Universe to exist.
4. What it takes for the Universe to exist cannot exist within the Universe (i.e., cannot be bounded by space and time).
5. Therefore, what it takes for the Universe to exist must transcend both space and time.

 

[mamooth]

So you've proven .... something exists. No indications that it's any sort of god. You can simply say that certain laws of physics transcend space and time.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The Argument from Contingency

1. If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.
2. The Universe—the collection of beings in space and time—exists.
3. Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the Universe to exist.
4. What it takes for the Universe to exist cannot exist within the Universe (i.e., cannot be bounded by space and time).
5. Therefore, what it takes for the Universe to exist must transcend both space and time.

Here is MY list that would satisfy me that this mirage actually exist:

1) His up to date e-mail.

2) His up to date phone number.

3) His up to date photo of him standing in front of his heaven home.

4) His up to date error free Bible, complete with real photos.

5) His live presentation of his son Jesus conducting a heavenly orchestra composed of 100 Harp playing Angels.

I will be surprised there is a full reply to my reasonable list, since he can do anything without failure!

 

[Street Juice]

So you've proven .... something exists. No indications that it's any sort of god. You can simply say that certain laws of physics transcend space and time.

The next step is to define that thing greater than which nothing can exist as "god".

 

[Ringtone]

So you've proven .... something exists. No indications that it's any sort of god. You can simply say that certain laws of physics transcend space and time.

You could, but of course, that implies an unembodied mind . . . what rational people call God.

 

[mamooth]

You could, but of course, that implies an unembodied mind . . .

To you, maybe, but there's no logical reason for such an assumption.

 

[Ringtone]

So you've proven .... something exists. No indications that it's any sort of god. You can simply say that certain laws of physics transcend space and time.

The next step is to define that thing greater than which nothing can exist as "god".

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Would you explain? Thanks.

 

[mamooth]

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Would you explain? Thanks.

I'm saying you jumped from "something exists" to "something intelligent exists", with no justification.

 

[Ringtone]

To you, maybe, but there's no logical reason for such an assumption.

And where, precisely, are these laws of physics ontologically hanging out . . . prior to the existence of the physical world?

crickets chirping

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

In the end, someone is right and someone is wrong.

If their right, it is all good. They told you so.

If their wrong it doesn't matter. No one will know.

The End.

 

[Ringtone]

I'm saying you jumped from "something exists" to "something intelligent exists", with no justification.

Well, you repeat, essentially, the same idea here. My response stands and stays. Laws imply unembodied mind. I ask again:

Where, precisely, are these laws of physics ontologically hanging out . . . prior to the existence of the physical world?​

crickets chirping

 

[Street Juice]

So you've proven .... something exists. No indications that it's any sort of god. You can simply say that certain laws of physics transcend space and time.

The next step is to define that thing greater than which nothing can exist as "god".

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Would you explain? Thanks.

It's from St Anselm's ontological proof of God's existence. Very similar to what you posted.

 

[Ringtone]

It's from St Anselm's ontological proof of God's existence. Very similar to what you posted.

Yes. I'm familiar with Anselm's ontological argument. I just wasn't sure what, precisely, you were suggesting or proposing about the "next step". That's all. Thanks.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Still waiting for EVIDENCE that your mirage exist.......

 

[Ringtone]

Still waiting for EVIDENCE that your mirage exist.......

Still asleep, eh?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Still waiting for EVIDENCE that your mirage exist.......

Still asleep, eh?

Still no evidence to offer..... eh?

 

[Ringtone]

Still no evidence to offer..... eh?

See OP . . . then wake up.

 

[Hollie]

The Argument from Contingency

1. If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.
2. The Universe—the collection of beings in space and time—exists.
3. Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the Universe to exist.
4. What it takes for the Universe to exist cannot exist within the Universe (i.e., cannot be bounded by space and time).
5. Therefore, what it takes for the Universe to exist must transcend both space and time.

Have you noticed yet that all of your attempts at arguments for the gods all suffer from the same failures?

Bullfrogs croaking

 

[Ringtone]

The Argument from Contingency

1. If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.
2. The Universe—the collection of beings in space and time—exists.
3. Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the Universe to exist.
4. What it takes for the Universe to exist cannot exist within the Universe (i.e., cannot be bounded by space and time).
5. Therefore, what it takes for the Universe to exist must transcend both space and time.

Have you noticed yet that all of your attempts at arguments for the gods all suffer from the same failures?

Bullfrogs croaking

The wisdom of this world is a chatty girl with brazen eyes and big teeth.

 

[Crepitus]

The Argument from Contingency

1. If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.
2. The Universe—the collection of beings in space and time—exists.
3. Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the Universe to exist.
4. What it takes for the Universe to exist cannot exist within the Universe (i.e., cannot be bounded by space and time).
5. Therefore, what it takes for the Universe to exist must transcend both space and time.

This can also be used to prove that the big bang is true.