Disproving the Bible

[SteveII]

Contingency Argument (as explained by WLC)
1. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause).

According to premise 1 there are two kinds of things: (a) things which exist necessarily and (b) things which exist contingently. Things which exist necessarily exist by a necessity of their own nature. Many mathematicians think that numbers, sets, and other mathematical entities exist in this way. They’re not caused to exist by something else; they just exist by the necessity of their own nature. By contrast, contingent things are caused to exist by something else. They exist because something else has produced them. Familiar physical objects like people, planets, and galaxies belong in this category.

What determination did you make to come to the conclusion that there's only two types of things? Or that things which exist necessarily can go beyond simple abstractions?

More importantly, numbers and mathematical entities don't exist in any real sense, they're functions of the human mind's attempt to quantify things for ease of communication. You and WLC are making the same mistake, of thinking that numbers exist in some abstract sense beyond human consciousness, that two equals two because there's some concept of two existing independently of minds that imposes itself upon pairs of things, rather than because that's what we've labelled any grouping of one more than one thing, but one less than three things. Numbers don't exist at all, they're a part of our language, and nothing more. Don't mistake conceptual things for things that actually exist independent of conscious thought.

And now you've got a problem, because you haven't established that anything is in the "exists necessarily" category. Even if we had just accepted that numbers were in it, you still hadn't bothered establishing that gods would be too. You seem to have real trouble with demonstrating your claims in general, actually. You make a lot of assertions, but merely saying something is so doesn't make it so: if you think it does, then there's a third category, "things that exist not," where only things that can never possibly exist ever are, and god is a part of that category. See how that's a problem?

Can you tell me what other types of things might exist that don't fall in these categories?

God would fall into the category of "in the necessity by its own nature". Any being worthy of the title of God would have to have the property of always existing.

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

If the universe has a cause of its existence, that cause must be a non-physical, immaterial being beyond space and time. Now there are only two sorts of thing that could fit that description: either an abstract object like a number or else an unembodied mind. But abstract objects can’t cause anything. So the cause of the existence of the universe must be a transcendent Mind, which is what believers understand God to be.

The issue here is that all the things you say "must" be attributes of the cause of existence, haven't been demonstrated to be the cause of existence. You're just saying words, and providing no evidence to back it up. Now, most of us here are familiar enough with WLC's brand of apologetics to know what the actual argument is for this, but he, like you, makes the mistake of thinking that just asserting attributes as "necessary" makes that the case. He argues by defining his conclusions as things that absolutely must happen, but you can't simply wrap a demand that an argument is true around a bunch of assertions and then walk away: there needs to be some demonstration that the argument is true, or else all you've done is say a bunch of words, label those words as true because you want them to be, and then expect everyone else to disprove them.

Anyone can do that. It's not hard. It's also not persuasive.

Okay, are you saying that the universe has no cause or there are other possible causes for the universe? If your position is that there are other causes for the universe, don't you have the problem if just moving back the causal chain one step (or a million). Or do you think some sort of universe generator existed into the infinite past?