The Argument from Contingency
(1) Everything that exists contingently has a reason for its existence.
(2) The universe exists contingently.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a reason for its existence.
(4) If the universe has a reason for its existence then that reason is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.
1. Tautological. That's what contingent means.
2. Not necessarily. And it has to be necessarily for the argument to work.
3. If the universe is contingent, it must have a reason for its existence, because that's what contingent means. However, the universe may not be contingent, so there's that.
4. Non-sequitur. If the universe has a reason for its existence, that reason could be any number of things besides a being that willed it into existence. And again, no actual establishment that the universe is contingent, it's simply taken as a premise.
5. For all the reasons noted above, that does not follow from the first three premises, which are too many, btw, it should be a 1, 2, 3 argument:
1. Premise 1: there must be a reason for the existence of the universe.
2. Premise 2: that reason is God.
3. Conclusion: Since the universe must have a reason and that reason is God, God must be real.
Doesn't sound so smart when boiled down to its essence, does it?
(1) Everything that exists contingently has a reason for its existence.
(2) The universe exists contingently.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a reason for its existence.
(4) If the universe has a reason for its existence then that reason is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.
1. Tautological. That's what contingent means.
2. Not necessarily. And it has to be necessarily for the argument to work.
3. If the universe is contingent, it must have a reason for its existence, because that's what contingent means. However, the universe may not be contingent, so there's that.
4. Non-sequitur. If the universe has a reason for its existence, that reason could be any number of things besides a being that willed it into existence. And again, no actual establishment that the universe is contingent, it's simply taken as a premise.
5. For all the reasons noted above, that does not follow from the first three premises, which are too many, btw, it should be a 1, 2, 3 argument:
1. Premise 1: there must be a reason for the existence of the universe.
2. Premise 2: that reason is God.
3. Conclusion: Since the universe must have a reason and that reason is God, God must be real.
Doesn't sound so smart when boiled down to its essence, does it?
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
