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.

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

How do you figure that?

 

[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.

How do you figure that?

If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.

 

[Likkmee]

I'll show you Friday,God willing

 

[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.

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

How do you figure that?

If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.

Are you alluding to the primordial quantum vacuum?

 

[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.

How do you figure that?

If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.

Are you alluding to the primordial quantum vacuum?

No, I'm pointing out I can substitute just about anything into your circular reasoning loop.

 

[Ringtone]

No, I'm pointing out I can substitute just about anything into your circular reasoning loop.

No you're not. You're unwittingly imply that something in time or being preceded the Big Bang, but you're not telling us what that would be. There's no circular loop of reasoning in the argument. That contention is silly, and an infinite regress of causation cannot be traversed to the present. The physical world began to exist.

 

[Sunsettommy]

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

See OP . . . then wake up.

View attachment 458314

I read your shitty fact/evidence free first post, that is why I gave you that reply using numbers 1-5. You never do answer the legitimate questions about whether your mirage god exist because you have no answers for them. You fail on this many many, times because YOU DON"T HAVE THE ANSWERS!

Meanwhile.........

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

 

[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.

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

Bullfrogs croaking

Yeah, ZERO evidence.

Snicker.....

 

[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

Yeah, ZERO evidence.

Snicker.....

Zero argument . . . again.

The many voices that saturate the airwaves,
The talking heads that float atop the breeze
Crawl inside my weary head and eviscerate my dreams. . . .

 

[BreezeWood]

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

.

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

.
is there a difference which existed first ... as their mutual existence eternally can be assumed equally probable. time being everlasting, the metaphysical laws and forces of the universe similarly mutual in existence. manifesting through cyclical events.

the elements being the first form of modern life evolving from a metaphysical origin - being plural in having many gods.

 

[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.

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

Bullfrogs croaking

Yeah, ZERO evidence.

Snicker.....

Zero argument . . . again.

The many voices that saturate the airwaves,
The talking heads that float atop the breeze
Crawl inside my weary head and eviscerate my dreams. . . .

This is why Christians are increasingly despised, they can't defend their religion when confronted by legitimate questions about whether their god exist or not.

 

[Sunsettommy]

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

No one knows, using the made up concept of god doesn't make anyone wiser.

That is the problem of religions, they make up answers as they go along.

 

[Ringtone]

No one knows, using the made up concept of god doesn't make anyone wiser.

That is the problem of religions, they make up answers as they go along.

crickets chirping

 

[Sunsettommy]

No one knows, using the made up concept of god doesn't make anyone wiser.

That is the problem of religions, they make up answers as they go along.

crickets chirping

 

[Crepitus]

No, I'm pointing out I can substitute just about anything into your circular reasoning loop.

No you're not. You're unwittingly imply that something in time or being preceded the Big Bang, but you're not telling us what that would be. There's no circular loop of reasoning in the argument. That contention is silly, and an infinite regress of causation cannot be traversed to the present. The physical world began to exist.

My argument is that your argument is specious. It's just circular reasoning.

 

[Sunsettommy]

No, I'm pointing out I can substitute just about anything into your circular reasoning loop.

No you're not. You're unwittingly imply that something in time or being preceded the Big Bang, but you're not telling us what that would be. There's no circular loop of reasoning in the argument. That contention is silly, and an infinite regress of causation cannot be traversed to the present. The physical world began to exist.

My argument is that your argument is specious. It's just circular reasoning.

I don't think his "circular reasoning" babbling even reached any form of argument level.

 

[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

Yeah, ZERO evidence.

Snicker.....

Zero argument . . . again.

The many voices that saturate the airwaves,
The talking heads that float atop the breeze
Crawl inside my weary head and eviscerate my dreams. . . .

This is why Christians are increasingly despised, they can't defend their religion when confronted by legitimate questions about whether their god exist or not.

Oh, shut up, you droolin' 'tard. Not one of you have ever once raised a legitimate question, let alone a legitimate argument.

You know the drill. . . .

Shall I say that I have rummaged through the scuttled relics

inside the bowels of a Leviathan?​

Have gathered their bones around me?
Have counted and named them all?
I have counted and named them all!
And I have teetered on the very edge of madness;
Rather, I have dangled inches above its gaping maw—
My wriggling feet, my white-knuckled grip . . . straining sweat and slipping,

wrapped around the final rung.​

 

[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.

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

Bullfrogs croaking

Yeah, ZERO evidence.

Snicker.....

Zero argument . . . again.

The many voices that saturate the airwaves,
The talking heads that float atop the breeze
Crawl inside my weary head and eviscerate my dreams. . . .

This is why Christians are increasingly despised, they can't defend their religion when confronted by legitimate questions about whether their god exist or not.

Oh, shut up, you droolin' 'tard. Not one of you have ever once raised a legitimate question, let alone a legitimate argument.

View attachment 458519


You know the drill. . . .

Shall I say that I have rummaged through the scuttled relics

inside the bowels of a Leviathan?​

Have gathered their bones around me?
Have counted and named them all?
I have counted and named them all!
And I have teetered on the very edge of madness;
Rather, I have dangled inches above its gaping maw—
My wriggling feet, my white-knuckled grip . . . straining sweat and slipping,

wrapped around the final rung.​

Another dead on arrival reply, that is the best you can do.... apparently.

 

[Ringtone]

Another dead on arrival reply, that is the best you can do.... apparently

“It’s as if atheists were lobotomized zombies or something,” Jane opined.

“That’s right,” said Spot. “The ramifications of their very own thought, if you can call it that, fly right over their heads.”

“But I thought atheists were free thinkers,” Dick said with a furrowed brow.

Jane looked confused.

Spot let out a barking stream of laughter that went on and on.

“Laugh, Spot, Laugh!” Jane giggled.

“See Spot laugh,” said Dick.

Spot couldn’t stop laughing. He rolled on his back and just laughed and laughed until his belly ached and tears streamed down his face.

“Oh, my goodness,” said Jane. “Are you okay, Spot?”

“Oh, I’m fine,” said Spot as he wiped the tears from his eyes.

“Whew! Oh, my … just let me catch my breath.”

Dick chuckled.

“You see, children, atheists are slogan spouters.”

“Slogan spouters?” Dick said.

“Yes, slogan spouters,” answered Spot.

 

[alang1216]

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

The law of gravity define how mass warps space. The law can exist just fine in the absence of space, it would just be hard to prove it. 1 + 1 = 2 The concept of '1' does not require a physical object.