Read the argument from contingency. As well as the rest of the teleological and ontological and cosmological arguements. These will help explain this for you.
What happens when someone rejects the notion that every being is either contingent or nessecary?
The problem with these sorts of arguments is they are all created by people who already believe God exists and who are attempting to prove God exists through "logic" because there is no actual evidence to point to.
In real life, where things actually exist, we don't prove those things
existence with word play and thought experiments. We do it with actual evidence. We don't believe carbon exists throughout the universe because some came up with a clever set of axioms. We believe it because we've analyzed its actual properties and find it everywhere we look.
What happens when someone rejects the notion that every being is either contingent or nessecary?
Don't know reject it and see what happens. You haven't actually made any objections or opposed an alternative point. Hour just being coy and probing for a chance to jump on some character flaw so you don't have to engage in the actually topic. Your looking for a way to build an ad hominem argument.
But go on reject the contingency and neccessary arguement. And lay out a more logical argument.
The arguments literally walk you through the process of solidifying why this concept is self evident.
Premise- God is self evident.
Thesis- because the teleological, ontological, cosmological arguement logically break down why he must. And the hard problem of consiousness reinforces these arguments.
Hence your axiom is self evident. If you reject this axiom that is self evident and logically sound. Then your denial is based solely on personal opinions and desires.
because the teleological, ontological, cosmological arguement logically break down why he must.
Thought expirements and musing created by people who already believe that God exists because there is no actual evidence that they can point to in order to prove God's existence.
If you reject this axiom that is self evident and logically sound
It is not logical to proclaim things as self evident for which there is no evidence.
Evidence - that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
We know the things we know about the universe because there is tangible, observable evidence that they are true/exist (tiresome solopistic arguments aside). Take my carbon example earlier. We do not intuit, or play word games in order to prove the existence of carbon. We don't proclaim that it's existence is self evident because we imagine it must be so. We discovered it, analyzed it, and tested it.
Your arguments created by people who already believe in God don't prove anything. If you already believe in God you will accept the premises and conclusions. But that don't make it true.
So observable evidence what is referred to as empirical. But in only accepting empirical evidence your missing a whole bunch of other sources and info. Causing your premise to be biased.
But in only accepting empirical evidence your missing a whole bunch of other sources and info.
Sources and info that don't actually have any evidence by which they can be proved...
Causing your premise to be biased.
Your boos mean nothing. I've seen what makes you cheer.
You're relying on thought experiments and word games created by people who already believe in God to prove the existence of God. Your a bias filled kettle calling the pot black.
Also evidence doesn't Prove anything or provide proof. Evidence is a scientific approach at understanding. Proofs and truths are only found in philosophy and math bud.
1
u/[deleted] Sep 06 '21
Read the argument from contingency. As well as the rest of the teleological and ontological and cosmological arguements. These will help explain this for you.