Argument from contingency

[GrandizerII]

I have yet to see one good argument that shows the cosmos must be contingent in the same sense that God cannot be contingent. It's basically another one of those special pleading arguments.

[mcc1789]

The only thing I've seen (like here http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/the...ontingent/) basically just says you can imagine its nonexistence, thus it can't be the necessary whatever. Yet as you say, we can imagine God not existing too. So that tells us little. The universe's nonexistence may not be impossible, like the link says, but it also hasn't been shown that God's isn't.

[Minimalist]

Fuck all gods.

[ignoramus]

yeah, you can't *poof* God into existence using logic or philosophy.
Everybody tries though.

swap God from that logic to absolutely anything and it's the same reasoning... it's a simple non seq fallacy.

[GrandizerII]

The only thing I've seen (like here http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/the...ontingent/) basically just says you can imagine its nonexistence, thus it can't be the necessary whatever. Yet as you say, we can imagine God not existing too. So that tells us little. The universe's nonexistence may not be impossible, like the link says, but it also hasn't been shown that God's isn't.

That depends on how they're defining the universe. If modal realism is true, then the universe (in the ultimate sense of the term) is necessary (by such reasoning), because it can be argued you can't logically have the absence of Existence existing.

[Edwardo Piet]

Okay, Hammy, thanks.

You're welcome.

It works doesn't work for anything. Odd isn't it Vorlon?

Fixed that for you.

---

I have yet to see one good argument that shows the cosmos must be contingent in the same sense that God cannot be contingent. It's basically another one of those special pleading arguments.

And it's worse than that because even if we accepted the premise that if God existed he wouldn't be contingent.... the argument still just puts God in the conclusion without explanation. There's no reason to believe that the reason has to be God. Even if we accept that if it did need to be God then he wouldn't be contingent.... the question would still be "But why does it need to be God?"

[Foxaèr]

The problem with most theistic arguments is that they love placing the cart before the horse.

[Edwardo Piet]

The problem with most theistic arguments is that they love placing the cart before the horse.

Yep.

They argue for something other than God... and then stick God in the conclusion lol.

God is supposed to be the conclusion after an argument leads to God. You can't just argue for anything randomly and just put God at the end lol.

Watch:

All men are moral.
I am a mortal.
Therefore I am a man.
All men have genitals.
I have genitals.
Therefore God exists.

Lol.

Here's a less silly one:

Do you agree that everything has a cause?
If so, do you agree that the universe has a cause?
Okay, so then that cause must be God.
Therefore God exists.

That's basically it lol. It's stupid as fuck.

This is what the argument should really be:

Do you agree that everything has a cause?
If so, do you agree that the universe has a cause?
Okay, then that cause must be a cause.
Therefore there is a cause to the universe.

^ That makes a lot more sense lol.

[GUBU]

What do people here think of the argument from contingency? Here is a summary: http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/the...ntingency/

I've had more fragrant shits, to be honest.

[RoadRunner79]

What do people here think of the argument from contingency? Here is a summary: http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/the...ntingency/

From that description, I would say that it is not a well completed argument.  It essentially seems to require the assumption that the universe is contingent, and then reasoning that a series of contingent things, must have a foundation in something which is necessary.  It touts that it does not rely on a beginning to the universe, but then how do you justify the premise that the universe is contingent? 

And while you may have an argument, that it is not turtles all the way down, the proper and immediate conclusion is that a necessary thing must be at the foundation of the chain.  However the statement "If the universe has a reason for its existence then that reason is God."  seems to come out of no where, without a logical connection to the things prior.  It could also be seen as begging the question. 

Overall, I'm not very impressed with at least this particular presentation of the argument.  It seems sloppy and incomplete.   I think that an argument from contingency may be used within a larger argument for God, but mostly as support for having a necessary thing at the beginning of the chain.  I don't see it being used as a stand alone argument.