Arguments for God's Existence from Contingency

[Cod]

Seems like the theists on AF rarely post videos about theology but rather make their points directly, whereas it is common for af atheists to believe that because they found a video that counts as a point. Must have something to do with the ability to think for  think for ones self.

Nah, it's just theists can't find any videos that make a valid point.

[Mister Agenda]

Cool, God exists as an abstract object, the same way faeries do, as an idea. I already knew that. So you had no inkling that by 'exist' I meant actually exist independently in reality, not just in people's heads? Didn't even cross your mind?

What are you talking about? You asked: "Can anyone think of an example of an object or entity that has actually been proven to exist by argument alone, no evidence, besides a deity?"

I answered: Abstract objects. I never commented on whether God was an abstract object or why you think that any deity has ever been proven to exist by argument alone. 

Do you think the concept of 7 or [p then q; p therefore q] is just in people's head or is an aspect of reality independent of the our minds? 

ob·ject
noun
noun: object; plural noun: objects
/ˈäbjekt/
1. a material thing that can be seen and touched.
"he was dragging a large object"
synonyms: thing, article, item, device, gadget, entity; More

The answer 'abstract objects' was not an answer to my question. 'Abstract' is a qualifier that no reasonable person could honestly infer that I intended.

I am allowed to bring up God, even if you didn't. If you don't like that the sense in which you're using 'exist' when you answered my question allows me to point out that the same use of 'exist' moots the ontological argument, maybe you shouldn't weasel with semantics.

The concept of 7' is in our heads by definition, that's what concepts are. '7' is not independent of our minds, because without a mind, there's no concept of '7'. If there were 7 rocks on the beach without a mind to count them or decide to focus on how many rocks there are instead of grains of sand, or distinguish grains of sand from rocks, or limit the number of rocks to those visible to a person standing on that beach; etc. '7' would be meaningless.

[Abaddon_ire]

St. Thomas begins his Third Way by saying that "we find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be." (ST, I, 2, 3) ...

I proceed to offer 4 arguments that reveal God's attributes based on the contingency of creatures.

I you have objections or critiques, I'll be happy to discuss them. Thanks.

OK, since you already quoted the first paragraph, let's skip to the second which opens with the statement:

"Now if the universe began, then "at some point," to use this phrase loosely, there was nothing."

Which is plainly false. The correct and scientific answer is "We don't know". That includes everyone. You, me, scientists, atheists, theists, everyone.

However, "We don't know" is not an excuse to insert your dog into the equation and it is dishonest to make the attempt.

Next: "If, on the other hand, the universe never began, then things in it must have existed forever, for an actual infinity of, say, years. (This isn't 100% intelligible in its own right, but let's suppose this for the sake of argument.) " We don't know that either. Also, you have deployed a false dichotomy.

Next: "But if it is possible for an existing thing not to be, then the probability of its corrupting within some finite span of time is non-zero. " So what?

Next: "But in infinite time, all probable events will occur, and an infinite number of times, too." Non-sequitur.

Next: "Hence he goes on that "if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence." " And therefore it is possible for god not to be as well. 

Next: "Either way, this is a problem, because "if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence -- which is absurd.""  Non-sequitur. The premises are false therefore the conclusion must logically be false.

And that is just your second paragraph.

[GrandizerII]

Ok, I'm going to address the first few points made in the OP link. Because I'm bored and free to post something tonight.

St. Thomas begins his Third Way by saying that "we find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be." (ST, I, 2, 3)

From one perspective, this does look like it's true. But look at it another way, any of those things could be necessarily existing at some point in time and/or universe, and yet necessarily not exist at some other point in time and/or some other universe. I think it is logically possible that the whole cosmos (all of existence apart from God) is necessary, with every event in it being necessary, as the non-existence of one thing at some point in time in some universe A may partly be an expression of some ingrained cosmological rule that all things possible are actual, just as much as the existence of that same thing at the same point in time in some parallel (and slightly different) universe B. If all things possible are actual, then we would expect both the existence and non-existence of the thing to occur at the same point in time (in parallel fashion).

Now if the universe began, then "at some point," to use this phrase loosely, there was nothing. If, on the other hand, the universe never began, then things in it must have existed forever, for an actual infinity of, say, years.

According to eternalism, that may indeed be the case. Every moment may be a forever moment. Presently, a thing exists eternally, and yet that same thing also presently does not exist and in an eternal manner. If you look at time as a spatial coordinate, rather than something that flows, then every moment in time presently exists, just as your x-y-z location and my x-y-z location both presently exist.

(This isn't 100% intelligible in its own right, but let's suppose this for the sake of argument.)

So your God existing forever is 100% intelligible, but any other entity existing forever is not? There is no logical justification I know of for what is special pleading being committed here.

But if it is possible for an existing thing not to be, then the probability of its corrupting within some finite span of time is non-zero. But in infinite time, all probable events will occur, and an infinite number of times, too. Hence he goes on that "if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence." Either way, this is a problem, because "if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence -- which is absurd."

If you look at it the way I like to look at it, which is more in line with modern science and specifically Einstein's theory of special relativity, then you don't even have to worry about nothing existing.

And the rest of the points basically follow from the first points addressed here. So I won't bother with going further because there's no need. God is not necessarily the explanation for the existence of the universe if the universe itself necessarily exists.

Of course, reality itself may be way crazier than any of us could imagine. You and I are both very limited beings and so there's a good chance neither of us are anywhere close to getting this right. But hey, I've addressed your points, and will see if you can come up with something clever as a rebuttal, one that I have not heard of.

[Angrboda]

Seems like the theists on AF rarely post videos about theology but rather make their points directly, whereas it is common for af atheists to believe that because they found a video that counts as a point. Must have something to do with the ability to think for  think for ones self.

Do you ever actually address the topic of the thread? Really, your constant editorializing without contributing is getting tiresome. For your information, the last thread about an argument for God, Steve posted a video instead of providing his own viewpoint. So either you believe that Steve can't think for himself, or you're just being a hypocrite. Anyway, you can take your implication that atheists can't think for themselves simply because they post an informative video and shove it up your ass. I found the video to be informative, thorough and quite on point. Unlike your bullshit comment.

[SteveII]

I don't think either of those charges is true.

For reference: 
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

That's just too bad, because those "charges" are an observation of inarguable facts.  You have no reason to believe that premise 2 is true, and it is an assertion of precisely what the argument is meant to demonstrate.  The premise fails on it's own as a premise, and scuttles the arguments validity in the process. 

Would you have a problem with "If atheism is true, the universe has no explanation of its existence?"

It wouldn't be any less unsound.  More worryingly....there doesn't appear to be any necessary relationship between the antecedent and consequent in either formulation.  Meaning that this category of assertion is fundamentally uninformative in any conditional statement.  There's no explicit or rational reason to conclude that the universe would or wouldn;t have an explanation regardless of whether or not a god exists or doesn't.  No specific combination of those four propositions is any more or less likely to be true than any other, and any of them could be true.  It may be that there is a god, but that the universe doesn't have an explanation at all, it just is, or it may be that there is no god -and- the universe doesn't have any explanation.  Or perhaps the universe does have an explanation, there is a god, but the explanation for the universe is not that god.  Or perhaps there is no god and the universe is explicable.  The one you're angling for is that there s a god, the universe is explicable, and that explanation is god..but if you had a rational reason to conclude as much I doubt that you'd have been forced to assert it -in- your "rational" reason for concluding as much.

In short, if there -is- such a reason to conclude what you have..you just aren't aware of it and so cannot communicate it to anyone else, or yourself.  

You are missing the fact that #2 is not just a premise floating out there alone. It is related to any discussion of #1. Is the universe's explanation of its existence either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause? I am not sure how you would defend the former, so if we go with the latter, we end up discussing #2.

Premise 2 simply states that very same conclusion in a logically equivalent way (the opposite). Neither logically equivalent statement assumes the conclusion because the premise is just laying out the either/or -- prefaced with "If". 

Premise two simply states the conclusion, we have no reason to believe that it's true, and no reason to assume that the truth or falsehood of the antecedent can cogently comment on the consequent...and so, no expectation that the truth or falsehood of the consequent can cogently comment on the antecedent.  

It's worthless. 

That is not how it works. The Premise is: IF the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. It is a very naive person who thinks that any of these premises are equal to the reasons to think the premise is more likely true than not. You know very well that books have been written on these arguments--arguing both sides. Your dismissing wave of the hand "states the conclusion" is simplistic and naive. The premise is the result of reasoning on what could be the explanation of the universe if the universe has an explanation. Undercutting defeaters would include alternatives. What are they?

Additionally, it is easy to also reason that if something created the universe, it was a necessarily existing, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and personal cause. There are very few things that answer to all those attributes.  Where did this list come from? They are simply the things necessary to either stop an infinite regress or are attributes that describe what must have preceded those things that began to exist when the universe began to exist (or a combination of both).

An exposition of the articles of your faith are irrelevant.  You presented an argument.  It's mechanical difficulties are insurmountable.  No amount of the other things you believe will rescue it from itself.  If you want to present an argument, that's going to take more than stringing claims together in a fashion convenient to the articles of your faith.  Meanwhile, you certainly don't -need- an argument or any rational reason whatsoever to believe.  This much is not only true by definition of beliefs in general, it's demonstrably true of your specific beliefs by reference to the things you field in support of them.

I am not stringing claims together. I will discuss the reasons (which are different than the premises themselves) to believe the premises are more plausible than their negation. 

For reference:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause).
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. The universe has an explanation of its existence. (from 1 and 3)
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God. (from 2 and 4)

[The Grand Nudger]

I am not stringing claims together. I will discuss the reasons (which are different than the premises themselves) to believe the premises are more plausible than their negation. 

For reference:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause).
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. The universe has an explanation of its existence. (from 1 and 3)
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God. (from 2 and 4)

Still at it, then?  If you didn't know what was wrong with the argument before, you do now.  It just  can't get any worse for an argument than for the premise to be unsound, the form invalid, and the nested propositions uninformative with regards to each other.  This has been discussed, you quoted it, you decided to respond...but somehow managed not to respond -in- your response. Your insistence that some premise is really, really plausible is irrelevant. Consider this, even if it were..and even if the conclusion were true..it wouldn't be for the reasons you've given, you failed to give a reason because you failed to adhere to the conditions of propositional logic.

That's complete and abject failure. I understand that it's an accurate description of your beliefs, and also that you believe that your beliefs are plausible.... but it's simply not and will never be a rational argument. You believe...because you believe..and that was made explicit in the premises of your malformed argument. You believe that your belief is rational, similarly, because it is yours...and your empty reassertion in the face of propositional mechanics is an example of your need to defend the rationalization as a part of your beliefs, about your beliefs..but more importantly about yourself. You're a rational person..right? Your beliefs are plausible, right? You've even got "reasons" for your "reasons".

Are you, are they...and if they were, was this...including the response above.... a good demonstration of that? I'm uninterested in further "reasons" from you if those you've already presented are indicative of their quality. "Reasons" resistent to factual correction aren't reasons at all, they're just so many more beliefs strung together.

Come back with a sound premise, in which the conditional relationships justify their contraposition, arranged into a valid form. These are the requirements of a compelling argument.

[GrandizerII]

You are missing the fact that #2 is not just a premise floating out there alone. It is related to any discussion of #1. Is the universe's explanation of its existence either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause? I am not sure how you would defend the former, so if we go with the latter, we end up discussing #2.

Sigh ...

Here's one logical defense: The cosmos exists because something rather than nothing has to exist, and the cosmos (with multiverse and thereby all possibilities being actual) is the natural expression of that existence.

Refute it, or forever be silenced, lol.

[The Grand Nudger]

The "just does" explanation is powerful for existence....particularly in light of this being their "explanation" for a god in the first place.

[Amarok]

whereas it is common for af atheists to believe that because they found a video that counts as a point. Must have something to do with the ability to think for  think for ones self

That's a rather pointless complaint and does not address the issue at hand or the points in said in the video . Nor does it in anyway argue for one lack of ability to think for ones self merely that a good source for a counter has been presented  . And yes theists on this site appeal all the time to links. Or do it i need to start listing all the times you have ? 

But thank you once again for proving your everything you accuse other people of .