PureX
Veteran Member
Even you must see how weirdly two-faced that is.
A wise man would have stopped there.
But an unwise man just has to try and pretend he knows more than he does.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why "God does not exist" is a positive claim
- Thread starter firedragon
- Start date
firedragon
Veteran Member
How do you "debunk" the contingency argument? Out of curiosity!
firedragon
Veteran Member
Dunning-Kruger effect?
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
If you believed everything that was possible, you'd have a head full of contradictions.
firedragon
Veteran Member
You mean logically possible or physically possible? What do you mean by "believe"? Seriously mate, this statement does not make any sense.
I do ot know of any atheists that deny their atheism.
It seems . . . here is the assumption of Theists. It is easy if you blindly believe without asking the serious questions concerning relying on ancient tribal texts without provenance for belief.
There are more issues and problems that just the lack of objective evidence for Gods, One should deal with the problems of the diverse conflicting beliefs in Gods justified by different ancient texts from different cultures,
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, but that is in your head. It is in effect a rational arguement about something which is independent of minds. Talk about a contradiction.
Now I do believe everything is possible. I just don't know that it is the case, but I believe it, because I don't think reality is determined by how I think, so I am not going to rule anything out.
In practice I have a set of beliefs, but those are that, beliefs. They tell nothing about objective reality/God, because that is in my epistemology unknowable as long as humans are humans in this apparent reality.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Take #2:
What is a contradiction and how does it exist in heads?
Makes perfect sense based first, the basic knowledge of our physical existence. Second, the problem with logic is the premises, and most use circular reasoning of justifying ones own beliefs based on assumptions that agree with their beliefs.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Apparently it is.
BUT ONLY
if it is claimed by an atheist.
For some reasons theists get a free pass.
firedragon
Veteran Member
So if you "believe" everything logically possible, how could you have a bunch of contradictions? A contradiction in logic is by itself logically impossible. Like a squared circle.
Thus, logically possible things or matters cannot be contradictions.
That's why your statement by itself is logically contradictory.
PureX
Veteran Member
Every time they claim they are undecided they deny their atheism.
I don't blindly believe anything. I don't believe much of anything any other way, either. And what you think ancient tribal texts have to do with anything is a complete mystery. All I suggested is that it would be a lot easier to just accept the possibility that God/gods exists and that none of us knows if, what, or how.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Somebody else need a dictionary? contradiction.
This isn't rocket science. For example, a God that condemns all unbelievers to hell is possible. A God that doesn't condemn anybody to hell is possible. They can't both be true. And that's just one aspect of the endless God possibilities. We have all the non-God possibilities too. They can't all be true.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
You believe all manner of nonsense.
ESCPECIALLY when it comes to your "knowledge" of atheists/atheism.
You got you arse handed to you repeatedly in this thread because you are just flat out wrong and you completely ignored it and continue on as though no one has pointed out to you your blatant wrongness.
And you wonder why you are not taken seriously?
Oh wait, no one cares, right?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
No, I do think we have one theist on this forum, who thinks God is natural.
But for the belief that all gods are supernatural, then there are no gods, if everything is natural.
It doesn't tell if you believe gods are supernatural or natural or something else.
It comes from this:
"...
A negative claim is the opposite of an affirmative or positive claim. It asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something.[10]
Logicians and philosophers of logic reject the notion that it is intrinsically impossible to prove negative claims.[11][12][13][14][15][10][16][17] Philosophers Steven D. Hale and Stephen Law state that the phrase "you cannot prove a negative" is itself a negative claim that would not be true if it could be proven true.[10][18] Many negative claims can be rewritten into logically equivalent positive claims (for example, "No Jewish person was at the party" is logically equivalent to "Everyone at the party was a gentile"). ..."
Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia
There are nothing supernatural.
There are no supernatural gods.
Thus everything is natural.
It follows from the word supernatural. Look it up.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
I mean logically possible based on what we (don't) know. We don't have enough information (evidence or reasoning) to rule in or rule out contradictory realities.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, here is my problem with that. You would have to know that logic apllies to God. How do you know that?
BTW I have no problem with logic applying to human brains, but that is not the same as everything.
PureX
Veteran Member
What "non-God" possibilities are there? That existence somehow spontaneously emerged from non-existence? There is no logical way that could happen. It is not even a possibility by any definition of a possibility that any human could muster. And even if it did, how could any existential properties emerge from within a property-less existence? Again, this is not a logical possibility by any form of logic that any reasoning human could respect.
I can see NO logical non-God possibilities. So please feel free to list them for me.
The "contingency argument is basically "debunked" based on the assumption of "arguing from ignorance." It assumes the ultimate cause is God, because their is no known cause beyond the observed natural causes of our physical existence. Like all apologetic arguments for the existence of God the assumption of the existence of God is embedded in the premises and therefore a circular argument,
At present the objective knowledge of science has demonstrated only natural causes for the nature of our physical existence down to the smallest scale Quantum Mechanics. One may believe that beyond this it is God that Created our physical existence, but arguing for "Contingency" is based on belief, and not an effective logical argument.
Contingency Argument refuted
The contingency argument is an argument for the existence of God. The argument is as follows: 1. Every contingent thing has an explanation of its existence. 2. If the universe has an explanation of…
jonathandavidgarner.wordpress.com
Contingency Argument refuted
The contingency argument is an argument for the existence of God. The argument is as follows:1. Every contingent thing has an explanation of its existence.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is a transcendent, personal being.
3. The universe is a contingent thing.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe is a transcendent, personal being (which is what everybody means by God).
As we can see, the argument starts from the Principle of Sufficient Reason (i.e. Premise 1 of the argument) and tries to conclude with God’s existence.
One might first object to this argument by questioning whether our cosmos is contingent.
In addition, if the universe/cosmos (i.e.multi-verse) is eternal, what exactly is the problem? Because, if every single thing is explained by some other thing, then there doesn’t seem to be an issue. Someone might object that the series as a whole isn’t explained, but so what? Why does that matter?
Now, let’s look at the necessary being (God) upholding the cosmos from eternity past. Is that act necessary or contingent? If it is necessary, then one is committed to saying that the cosmos necessarily exists. But if we grant that the universe necessarily exists, then we don’t need God at all.
But suppose that God upholding the cosmos is contingent. Then, what explains why we have this specific cosmos rather than another cosmos? If there’s no explanation, then we do we need to invoke God at all? Why not just go with the simpler explanation by saying the cosmos just exists, end of story. But, even if there is a reason for God to uphold this cosmos, that explanation is still contingent.
The main problem with the argument is the version of the PSR that it endorses. This version presupposes that there is no possible world where there exists contingent things that exist eternally and independently. But why is this impossible? What exactly is the issue? In a world where there exists an eternal and independently existing (contingent) universe, there is nothing to knock it out of existence. In other words, the universe is factually necessary. As a result, invoking the PSR is not needed.
Finally, there doesn’t seem to be any support for the PSR, which most supporters of the PSR seem to grant quickly. Or, they will either say the PSR is self-evident and/or it can be supported indirectly. However, claiming something is self-evident does not make it so. And what about supporting the PSR indirectly? Well, the only argument I’ve seen for this says that if the PSR is false, then nothing requires explanation. But, this is a bad argument because it’s a non-sequitur. Just because some things don’t have an explanation, that doesn’t mean no thing has an explanation. One could think that most things require explanation, or one could think that non-eternal things require further explanation.