RE: Illustrating the burden of proof - pay me!
February 6, 2022 at 2:43 pm
(This post was last modified: February 6, 2022 at 3:33 pm by LadyForCamus.)
(February 6, 2022 at 2:20 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: And an atheist critic will say, that inserting the contingent/non-contingent qualifier up front allows the theist to conclude that there is at least one non-contingent cause. Maybe. What is the alterative? Everything is contingent on everyting else in a circular reference? Or nothing at all is contingent? Those who object to that distinction seem not to object to the notion that some things supervene on an ultimate physical ground that is fundamental. Sound the same conceptually.
What I’m mostly interested in is the rational justification for the proposition that physical reality itself must be contingent, and for what reasons a God’s existence has to be necessary where reality itself cannot be.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.