Arguments for God's Existence from Contingency

[LadyForCamus]

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)

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

But, but!  It's not so simple as that!  People write books about this stuff, you know!  😏

---

I prefer discussing the modern version of the Argument from Contingency:

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.

You have provided zero justification for this premise.  You're simply assuming from the two possibilities in premise 1., that the latter is true, and the former is not.  Please explain how you have ruled out the possibility that the universe exists necessarily by its own nature.

And, even if we grant you (without any justification at all) that the universe is contingent upon something else, how did you determine that "something else" is a thinking agent who continues to actively participate in his creation?  Also, what's with this additional assertion that if it is true that god doesn't exist, then there is no explaination for the universe?  How on earth have you determined that?

You see, it's not up to us to offer defeaters, Steve.  You have to demonstrate the truth of your premise. If your evidence for premise 2. is: 'I can't think of any other explaination but God. What else could it be?'  Well...you know exactly what's wrong with that, don't you?

[Amarok]

No theist has ever been able to prove existence is contingent . Only form it takes  may have been different and not really even that . There is no reason to believe that the universe is not necessary .And even less of a reason to believe i god is .

[LadyForCamus]

The brightest minds in modern physics haven't reached a conclusion on the subject, but theists think they've got an irrefutable case in four premises, lol.

[Pat Mustard]

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. 


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 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?

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)

I see you are unwilling to challenge my refutation of what you laughingly call proof. Way to debate, coward.

[GrandizerII]

The brightest minds in modern physics haven't reached a conclusion on the subject, but theists think they've got an irrefutable case in four premises, lol.

That's because God is on their side. They must therefore be right!

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.

You mean like your first two posts: HERE and HERE

If those are what you think passes for addressing the topic then maybe you should go back to smoking the poles of Canadian truck drivers in Calgary weight stations.

As for SteveII, I didn't see that. If he did then I'll have to take him to the woodshed. You can come and watch if you want. I heard you're into that kind of thing.

[The Grand Nudger]

@Grand
Somehow™, yes, despite all evidence to the contrary.  In the case in question, we have a believer who's convinced himself that propositional logic must be wrong, somehow, no more or less than this...because he's so very right.

---

 go back to smoking the poles of Canadian truck drivers in Calgary weight stations.

-a decidedly more productive and useful way to spend one's time.   

[brewer]

Can any of you explain what exactly "necessity of its own nature" means? I googled it, found pages and pages of the religious using the statement/position in their arguments but never really stating what it is or why it is.

[The Grand Nudger]

It means "just is". It's the same thing they rail against when it cuts their god out.

[brewer]

How does "just is" (exists) make it a necessity? 

Feels like gobbledygook to twist their argument.