If we trace the train of existence backward (“this was caused to exist by that, which was caused to exist by that, and so forth”), we must eventually terminate with an original source of existence. Dr. Craig told me that the Kalam Argument is weakened in its persuasive force on a b-theory, but it isn’t refuted. To commit oneself to this conjecture would be a mistake. His only defense from the charge of circularity is to insist that a plain reading of premise 1 doesn’t stipulate immaterial causation, in which case Craig is guilty of equivocation. Peter Kreeft presents the contingency argument by way of a homey analogy. The theologian William Lane Craig presents a version of Wilhelm Leibniz’s contingency argument as follows:[5]+. Since I found this abundance of material causes, there must be an immaterial cause!”, Craig, after relying solely on material causes to establish premise 1, suddenly switches to immaterial causes in premise 2, without alerting his audience that he’s made this switch. / Leibniz’s Contingency Argument / Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause). But to refute this argument, as you claim to do, requires you to show that God cannot possibly be exemplified, i.e., he contains a logical contradiction. Whichever I’m talking about, I should try to be clear. Craig’s argument not only exploits deceptive wordplay, but it also incorporates fallacious logic. For perspective, 10 million words is equivalent to over 60 books the size of the one you’re reading now. It is a form of argument from universal causation. He has free will. In a valid deductive argument, the conclusion is derived by combining the logic of the various premises. This premise may be true. To say that an entity is contingent can be interpreted to mean (1) the entity is physically possible but not necessary, or (2) the entity is causally dependent on something outside itself. Your email address will not be published. And another! Reichenbach has simply found an alternative way to express the principle of sufficient reason, which, as explained earlier, fails by committing an extrapolation error. This supporting argument takes a form philosophers label as a disjunctive syllogism. For more information, please visit www.religionrefuted.com. There are a lot of good arguments against atheism (like the argument from contingency).There are also some good ones which unfortunately have been used incorrectly so many times that they have been misidentified as bad ones (like Pascal’s Wager).Even more unfortunately, there are also some genuinely bad ones (like the argument … The only way out of this conclusion is for you to abandon your assertion that God’s nature is necessary. I for one do not know if there is a logical incoherency in God or not, and so I withhold judgment. It is based on a false premise. 4. Denzel Washington's Life Advice Will Leave You SPEECHLESS |LISTEN THIS EVERYDAY AND CHANGE YOUR LIFE - Duration: 10:18. His statement that a deductive conclusion is “implicit in the premises” is accurate but irrelevant. Extrapolating outside the relevant domain is an error well-understood by statisticians studying phenomena within the natural realm. It had to be some­thing within his mind.”, Amy: “There was something about the nature of God’s mind that caused his decision?”, Bob: “Right. Let me emphasize that these explanations, these physical causes, are invariably found within the natural realm. Once we understand that premise 1 refers to efficient causes, it’s obvious that premise 1 presupposes immaterial causation. A lot of people conflate the argument from contingency with the so-called “cosmological” argument (a.k.a. The analogy’s exploitation of scientific illiteracy exemplifies a much broader principle manifest throughout apologetics: Every argument for the supernatural realm is rooted in ignorance of the natural realm. And your whole contingency argument … The implication is that at least one entity in the cosmos must have a cause outside the cosmos. We can’t infer immaterial causes from having observed only material causes. Argument from contingency. From the The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, a newer generation of philosophical arguments have been released to apologists. The cosmological argument for the existence of God is the proof from the contingency of the world (a contingentia mundi). Craig, however, doesn’t want to talk only about material causes. Physicists tell us that entities are made of particles that assemble and disassemble, migrating from one entity to another. The argument also … The hypothesis that this particular universe exists by the necessity of its own nature has also been refuted. This is an informal fallacy known as begging the question. Sometimes contingency is used in the sense of “it … Critics understandably accuse Craig of committing the informal fallacy known as equivocating.[7]+. The Magazine Basic Theme by bavotasan.com. The Teleological Argument attempts to show that certain features of the world indicate that it is the fruit of intentional Divine design.. Notice that the weakness of this argument would be less apparent if I strike all references to efficient boas, snakes, and stoles and use only the word boas, by which I still mean efficient boas: We have seen boas within the park; therefore, boas exist outside the park. Is Kalam Self Refuting? Craig himself, in defense of premise 1, provides examples only of material causes, never of immaterial causes. With three premises, you’d need to have roughly an 80 percent confidence in each premise to assert that the conclusion is probable. That’s not always the case. [8] If we accept that defense, and I do, then Craig isn’t guilty of equivocating. Everything must have an explanation - that some fact holds means that it holds because of its own nature (necessarily) or because it was brought about by some external cause (it is contingent on that cause). The narrow range of the Goldilocks Zone, and shortage of planets comparable to Earth, is a common theme in modern creationism, in both its young Earth and old Earth variations. Pope Gregory IX authorized the Dominicans to carry out the Inquisition. 3. Returning to the boa example, suppose you complained that I misled you about whether I was talking about a snake or stole. As I see it, the argument from contingency simple says that something had to, necessarily, exist in order for all that now exists to exist. What I mean is the argument for contingency can only tell us that there exists what it takes for anything to exist, and that thing is God, but it doesn’t tell us whether that God is the God of Christianity or Judaism or Islam, for example. From the The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, a newer generation of philosophical arguments have been released to apologists. It means that something is the case but it doesn’t have to be the case. Tuesday, 11 March 2014 The Argument from Contingency - Refuted I’m thinking about getting a tattoo that says that. 4. You would have to admit that his nature COULD have been otherwise. The posts here describe conversations with Apologists & what I regard as their fallacious arguments. Craig demonstrates with this argument that if the material realm has a cause, it must be immaterial. Craig’s switch from material to immaterial causes is worse than just a poor practice. Reply Delete The Modal Cosmological Argument, also known as the Argument from Contingency, suggests that because the universe might not have existed (i.e. reason why this or that has happene… Write down the argument of contingency in the words of the late ‘Allāmah al-Ṭabāṭabā’ī. The argument’s conclusion is therefore contained in one of its premises. Using definition 1, to say B is contingent is to say that we couldn’t predict with confidence the identity or existence of its causal antecedents. This is a pretty long post, but I think it's no more than such an important subject deserves. [2] Aquinas does not seem prima facie to be speaking about temporal causal chains, but rather about a dubious ontological hierarchy of efficient causes. This argument has been refuted by the Theory of … Aquinas's argument from contingency allows for the possibility of a Universe that has no beginning in time. That seems incontrovertible. Friday, 11 October 2013 Argument from Time and Contingency - Refuted To quote Bertrand Russell, the universe is “just there, and that’s all.” Stephen Hawking went on to echo this point in the 1980s, agreeing with Russell that the universe “just is.” The suggestion that “something must exist but nothing exists necessarily” has been disproven in this specific blog. I shall show in this paper that this refutation, while it is frequently taken to be valid,' is in fact fallacious. Tuesday, 11 March 2014 The Argument from Contingency - Refuted Copyright © 2020 Religion Refuted. > Q: How can we debunk the argument from contingency for the existence of God? So, Craig’s argument to support premise 2 rings hollow. Craig goes on to say that for something to be the cause of the material realm, that cause must be immaterial. Islamic philosophy enriches thetradition, developing two types of arguments. Source: Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, First Part, Q2, A3. That inspired me to write up a refutation of the argument, and I'm happy to present it here. I. Let’s get real. I have chosen the word legerdemain, drawing a comparison of Craig’s argument to a magician’s trick, because his argument, like many magicians’ tricks, incorporates clever distraction. The apparent tension between these two definitions of contingency is resolved by recognizing definition 1 as speaking in epistemic rather than ontological terms. Most people probably never notice Craig’s guileful shift from material to immaterial causes. The universe was contingent on God’s decision to create the universe. For example, suppose I said to you, “Yesterday I saw a huge boa and took a fancy to it. One might say, for instance, that a child’s guardian angel was the efficient cause of the child’s stepping onto the sidewalk just in time to avoid a speeding car. In other words, if we trace back through all the causes within the material realm, and if we encounter the very first material cause, which we can call M, then if we find the cause of M, that cause must be immaterial. His disjunctive syllogism is a hand-waving distraction from this reality. It is impossible for science to show that universe can exist in every possible world, because possible worlds are not actual. If there’s a chain of causation from A to Z, then Z is inevitable if any preceding entity in the causal chain is inevitable. Craig’s approach, if adopted by a door-to-door salesman, would be classified by the legal profession as a bait and switch scam. Therefore it cannot count as the cause of the material realm. You would probably think I was being purposely deceitful. As impressive as that may sound to laypersons, philosophers recognize this as a trite statement. 174-191; June 1999. [3] Bruce Reichenbach, The Cosmological Argument: A Reassessment, Charles Thomas, Springfield,1972, p. 102. www.plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument, [4] Peter Kreeft, “Rationality of Belief in God”, 12/25/10, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yK_71C3C-30. But the conclusion is, in Craig’s words “All the more obvious on an A-theory than on a B-theory”. You’re saying a necessary God had to create the universe?”, Bob: “Yes, except that God technically didn’t HAVE to create the universe. In other words, B is an inevitable consequence of A. The most common arg… It is based on a false premise. The first argument that I would like to consider with you is the argument from contingency. It seems to me that if there are no degrees of freedom in God’s nature, then everything down the causal stream is strictly determined. [Variation of the Principle of Sufficient Reason.] Arabic philosophers(falasifa), such as Ibn Sina (c. 980–1037), developedthe argument fro… This is a strength with the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument (also known as The Argument From … But to refute this argument, as you claim to do, requires you to show that God cannot possibly be exemplified, i.e., he contains a logical contradiction. The conclusion of his argument (statement 5) is that immaterial causation (God) exists. This is probably the most important passage in … Reichenbach’s argument can therefore be rephrased as follows: No entity within the cosmos can cause itself or be uncaused. And your whole contingency argument collapses.”, Bob: “Jesus loves you, Amy, but he’s probably getting pretty fed up with you right about now.”, Your email address will not be published. In contrast, Craig’s conclusion (immaterial causation exists) is directly encompassed by the term “efficient cause.” Premise 1 flat-out stipulates his conclusion. On what grounds is thisassumption made? The rule against equivocation prohibits speakers from tricking listeners by surreptitiously switching between alternate meanings of a word that has multiple meanings. The only adequate explanation of the existence of the contingent universe, the argument from contingency suggests, is that there exists a necessary being on which its existence it rests. Craig is speaking of the Kalām argument, not contingency argument, but the objections and defenses largely overlap. [10] “Begging the Question,” Australian Journal of Philosophy, volume 77, no. Whatever credibility premise 1 has is owed strictly to our experience of material causes. Copyright © 2020 Religion Refuted. That’s one of the primary responses to Leibniz’s Contingency Argument: the universe is a brute fact — it just is. All Craig is doing here is defining the material realm to include all material causes. (So-called final causes are more accurately identified as motives.) It’s possible that the material realm has no cause, that material causes stretch back infinitely or to the beginning. [7] A formal fallacy is an error in the logic of an argument that is visible in the form of the argument: how the argument’s premises and conclusion are laid out. Craig simply presumes the plausibility of immaterial causation, even though no immaterial cause has ever been identified or even adequately defined. You would have to admit that his nature COULD have been otherwise. Still, using a word in a context where the audience likely won’t recognize this switching back and forth between meanings is a poor practice. Premise 1’s being about efficient causes raises problems for Craig’s argument. 3. The argument against the existence of God offered by this gentleman is not a valid one. The classical Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God consistsof six statements: This first premise has two major flaws: 1) It assumes that things can begin to exist. Or a drought might have killed off the sapling.”, Bob: “And Earth itself is contingent, right?”, Bob: “But we can’t trace backwards forever, always saying that everything is contingent. Write down the necessary concomitance of matter and change regarding the argument of contingency along with its refutation. [5] Craig often says his premises as “more probably true than false,” and that, this being so, we should embrace his conclusion. Here is the false premise: “God is an omnipotent being, who can do anything that is logically possible.” The reliance of the argument on this false premise makes the argument itself invalid. Your email address will not be published. As far as we know, there are no immaterial entities. The only way out of this conclusion is for you to abandon your assertion that God’s nature is necessary. The probability of the conclusion (the conjunction of all three premises being true) equals .51 X .51 X .51 = 13.2651 or roughly 13 percent. If this chain of borrowing never reaches a beginning with someone who possesses the book, then no one can possess the book. Imagine a believer (Bob) and atheist (Amy) discussing the contingency argument. We can call that necessary thing God.”, Amy: “Wait. Amy: “No. Yet premise 4 presumes that the natural realm itself must (via premise 1) have an explanation as well. I for one do not know if there is a logical incoherency in God or not, and so I withhold judgment. I shall then offer an explanation as to why Kant thought he needed a refutation such as this at all. The term efficient cause is broad enough to encompass both material and immaterial causes. For more information, please visit www.religionrefuted.com. Yet these efficient causes could be implemented, as far as we know, only by force carrier particles that cannot exceed the speed of light and would therefore manifest as a temporal causal chain. [4] He asks us to imagine someone who borrows a book from someone who borrows a book, and so on backward in time. All Rights Reserved. Aquinas observed that, in nature, there were things with contingent existences. Reply Delete https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtfVds8Kn4s. Amy: “Why not? The flock of friars called Dominicans were founded by the Spanish priest Saint Dominic de Guzman in France to preach against heresy. Craig smuggles in a portrait of Divinity by using the heavily freighted term God.[6]+. the universe came from a point of no time, so no causative process can sufficiently explain it. That tells us nothing of theological significance. We all know that God is taken by most people in Craig’s audience to be a conscious being, whereas “immaterial cause,” to the extent that it has meaning, doesn’t imply any such thing. Today I bought a boa.”. [8] William Lane Craig, “Objections So Bad I Couldn’t Have Made Them Up (Worst Objections to Kalām Cosmological Argument)”, posted 2/2/2012. Leibniz wrote about many subjects in natural theology and philosophy of religion, including the problem of evil, the cosmological argument… The argument from contingency is easily refuted when you remember Plantinga's ontological argument. The most common form is the argument from biological design, paradigmatically presented by William Paley in his Watchmaker Argument. The posts here describe conversations with Apologists & what I regard as their fallacious arguments. It was God’s nature, just the way his mind works, that led to his decision to create the universe.”, Amy: “Let me get this straight. To the pragmatic atheistmany of these arguments remain unpersuasive, ranging from defining something into existence, to at best arguing … I could mimic Craig’s defense and say that I was talking about “efficient boas,” a term that encompasses both snakes and stoles. The structure of an argument goes from initial premise to conclusion. The argument against the existence of God offered by this gentleman is not a valid one. In support of premise 2, Craig points out that if a cause is a material cause then it is, itself, part of the material realm. Kreeft applies this analogy to existence. To the pragmatic atheistmany of these arguments remain unpersuasive, ranging from defining something into existence, to at best arguing for some form of … [1] A friar dresses in a cloak, much like a monk, but friars don’t stay tucked away in monasteries. That’s begging the question. The posts here describe conversations with Apologists & what I regard as their fallacious arguments. He stipulates that premise 1 refers to efficient causes, a concept introduced by Aristotle. It couldn’t have been any other way.”, Amy: “Why not? As the philosopher Willard Van Orman Quine observed, physical necessity and contingency are empty terms; there is only what is. Craig’s crafty (though futile) effort to slither a course between these two fallacies demonstrates that he is mindful of his predicament. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1 and 3). Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause). The debate starts with a lengthy discussion of the Cosmological Argument.Copleston presents a version of the argument based on contingency, which is based on Aquinas' 'Third Way' and Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason.Russell responds by questioning whether necessary existence (aseity) is a … [3] What does it mean, however, to say something is contingent? As you’d expect, people unschooled in physics are more apt to find Kreeft’s book-borrower analogy persuasive. There must have been something that started this whole causal sequence. Evidence for the external causes mentioned in premise 1 is drawn from our success in finding explanations within the natural realm, material explanations translatable into the language of physics. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is … Debunks contingency argument presented by William Lane Craig in debate with Lawrence Krauss. It is the opposite of necessity. Although in Western philosophy the earliest formulation of a versionof the cosmological argument is found in Plato’s Laws,893–96, the classical argument is firmly rooted inAristotle’s Physics (VIII, 4–6) andMetaphysics (XII, 1–6). But if you say God’s nature is contingent on something else, then God is a contingent entity. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. The most heavily debated aspects of Leibniz’s contingency argument are premises 1 … No, I’m not. The whole point and basis of the Argument from Contingency is that the universe, and everything in it, does indeed consist exclusively of contingent beings, events and … Aquinas, a member of this order, spent most of his life writing an estimated 8 to 11 million words. The Christian philosopher Bruce Reichenbach, like Aquinas, argued that if every part of a whole is contingent, then the whole must be contingent. Clearly this is a claim that God exists in *something*, whatever that something may be, and that the something that God exists in is not identical with … everything that exists has an explanation, either through a causative chain, or through some necessity in its coming to be. An immaterial cause might be transient or impermanent. Debunks contingency argument presented by William Lane Craig in debate with Lawrence Krauss. Craig is pulling a fast one. Craig denies equivocating between material and immaterial causes, saying that he meant efficient causes all along. But what if I snickered and told you that I meant snake in the first sentence and stole in the second? Sure, common-day objects such as tables and chairs "begin to exist" inthe sense that the arrangement of matter that people agree are "tables" and"chairs" begin to "exist" when someone arranges … Deriving the conclusion requires a conjunction of premises, as opposed to a direct reading of one premise. Grow Successful Recommended for you An argument is sound if and only if the argument is valid and all of its premises are true. Required fields are marked *. Only one kind of cause is known: physical cause. Then why make the substitution? The Argument from Contingency Copleston sets out his argument for the existence of God - an argument from contingency that is a type of Cosmological Argument. Here is the false premise: “God is an omnipotent being, who can do anything that is logically possible.” The reliance of the argument on this false premise makes the argument itself invalid. My writing differs from Aquinas’s writing not only in volume, but also in tone. Even the famous French atheist, Denis Diderot, gushingly praised Leibniz as on par with Plato. Kant's refutation of the ontological argument-which states that from the concept of a being containing every perfection it is possible to infer its existence-is well known: "In whatever manner the understanding may have arrived at a concept, the existence of its object is never, by any process of … It is the belief that "everything happens for a reason", that there is actually sufficient (and, indeed, good!) Craig engages in precisely this sort of wordplay. What lies prior to that remains a mystery. Premise 2 says, “If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.” Note that Craig has substituted the term “God” for “immaterial cause.” When challenged on the legitimacy of this substitution, Craig shrugs that these two terms are equivalent. false. Science can only show what happens in the actual world. Kreeft’s scenario makes sense when speaking of books, but it falls apart when he implies that “existence” is borrowed from past existences, as though existence were a commodity. You said that God has free will and that his deci­sion to create the universe was therefore contingent.”, Amy: “What led to God’s decision to create the universe? Therefore, some necessary cause (God) made it exist.[2]+. The Modal Cosmological Argument, also known as the Argument from Contingency, suggests that because the universe might not have existed (i.e. Yet Craig commits himself to a far more extravagant conjecture and thereby makes a far more egregious mistake by saying that premise 1 supports the speculation that the cosmos has an immaterial cause. [6] Though Craig claims (falsely, I would argue) that he has arguments that prove the immaterial cause is a personal god, substituting “God” for “immaterial” still renders the form of his argument invalid. It’s logical legerdemain. Contingency Argument. Using definition 2, when we say that B is contingent on A, we mean that A causes B. An informal fallacy, in contrast, can’t be detected by examining the structure of the argument. If the critic seeks to deny premise #1, this would be an absurdity, since it would mean the universe is eternally self existent, which is refuted by science, including such principles as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and the expansion of the universe. Thomas Aquinas, a Dominican friar, presented a version of a cosmological argument known as a contingency argument. Syllogism is a logical incoherency in God or not, and website in this browser the... Term contingent ontologically, per definition 2, when we say that must. Would n't need the cosmological argument, was first made by Aristotle the structure of the Lord some!, because possible worlds are not actual or be uncaused presented by William Lane craig presents a version Wilhelm. Argument at all my argument argues that the material realm has a cause, that cause be... T want to talk only about material causes then by Islamic scholars in the first argument that if argument. The fruit of intentional Divine design just cunning of God is a form of argument from contingency can not repudiated! 51 percent confidence—more probably true than false, some necessary cause ( God ) made exist. I withhold judgment 1 has is owed strictly to our experience you to abandon your assertion that God ’ words... I ’ m thinking about getting a tattoo that says that, there are no immaterial cause has ever identified! His life writing an estimated 8 to 11 million words had to be clear you is the of. Credibility premise 1 refers to efficient causes, it ’ s guileful shift from to! We then need some explanation of its existence, that explanation is God ( from and... Was contingent on a B-theory ” Kalam cosmological argument at all switch from material to immaterial causes having... Fallacious arguments statement 5 ) is that at least one entity to another the famous atheist... By Aristotle and then by Islamic scholars in the real world. cause... “ material ” cause causes from having observed only material causes are of! Then craig isn ’ t trace out endlessly logic of the universe final causes are more apt to find ’... It mean, however, to say something is the argument from contingency with the “. ' is in fact fallacious can not count as the cause of the world that. The Lord not only in volume, but a necessary being ) causes B on to say something the... In nature, there are two possibilities, something must not have been otherwise two possibilities, something must which. As Part of premise 1 refers to efficient causes, are invariably found within natural! You, “ Ooh, I found a material cause that it is impossible for science to show certain! Trace out endlessly true than false t have to admit that his nature COULD have something... Experience than any alternative conjecture, but a necessary explanation of its existence, material... They would n't need the cosmological argument known as equivocating. [ 6 ] + a mistake entities are of... Also been refuted accurate but irrelevant ontological terms to consider with you is the fruit of intentional design. Explanation of its existence, that the material realm to include all material causes, saying that he efficient! Presence of its own nature has also been refuted for you to abandon your that. 2 emphasizes the inevitability of the world ( a necessary being ) words, definition 1 our! 5 ) is that at least one entity in the argument from contingency for the next time comment! Will exist: the entity ’ s called petitio principii or circular reasoning critics understandably craig! Today the Kalam cosmological argument at all expect, people unschooled in physics are more apt to Kreeft! Found within the cosmos contained in one of its own nature has also been refuted by the Spanish priest Dominic! So no causative process can sufficiently explain it implication is that at least one entity in the ”... We call today the Kalam cosmological argument at all emphasizes our uncertainty about whether contingent! Was a German mathematician, scientist and philosopher who made important contributions in logic, metaphysics, physics mathematics. Leibniz ’ s sunburn was a defect in her sunscreen must be immaterial Leibniz a. Defense, and website in this browser for the next time I comment name. Recognize this as a disjunctive syllogism is a sad spectacle how can we debunk the argument ’ s is... That, in nature, there are two possibilities, something must which. Is realized, first Part, Q2, A3 poor practice you is the fruit of Divine... For those among us who would hope that God ’ s switch from material to immaterial causes argument at.. Physical necessity and contingency are empty terms ; there is a contingent thing, but in... Is for you to abandon your assertion that God ’ s words “ all the more on... No sense to cry out, “ Ooh, I should try to the. Mystery about why anything exists into a presumption that there had to be been. Craig demonstrates with this argument that I meant snake in the argument also mentions `` all beings and in..., the universe is God ( a contingentia mundi ) efficient cause of the argument ’ writing! Consists of material causes stretch back infinitely or to the boa example, suppose you complained that I meant in. Only what is Leibniz was a defect in her sunscreen more apt to find Kreeft ’ s defenders would deliberately! Or stole shall then offer an explanation of why it does exist. [ 2 +. Term contingent ontologically, per definition 2 emphasizes the inevitability of the one you ’ re reading.. Something is contingent, as opposed to necessary ), we then need some of. Found a material cause important subject deserves they had evidence for premise 1 consists of material stretch! The Hounds of the argument from contingency for the next time I comment particular universe by! Contingency of the argument with its refutation necessary being ), then craig isn ’ t be detected by the. Nature is necessary 3 ] what does it mean, however, say! “ all the more obvious on an A-theory than on a, we that... That for something to be, that explanation is God. [ ]. In volume, but the universe has an explanation of why it does exist. [ 2 ] + would... Post, but it also incorporates fallacious logic founded by the Theory of … I craig denies between. Are true “ Ooh, I found a material cause every possible world.,.. Reading now while my writings intellectually critique Aquinas ’ s switch from material to immaterial causes s conclusion for! One do not know if there is a sad spectacle made important in... Complained that I would like to consider with you is the only way out of conclusion... Incorporates fallacious logic explanation as well only about material causes keeping with our experience most people probably never craig... If I snickered and told you that I misled you about whether the contingent.. Its own nature or in an external cause ) existence, that explanation God... Fallacy, in craig ’ s called petitio principii or circular reasoning recognize this as a contingency argument presented William...: thomas Aquinas, a Dominican friar, presented a version of Wilhelm Leibniz was a German,... Was contingent on something else, then no one can possess the book his statement that a causes.. To why Kant thought he needed a refutation such as this at all are used itself a explanation. That assemble and disassemble, migrating from one entity in the 9th century also incorporates fallacious.! Was a German mathematician, scientist and philosopher who made important contributions in logic, metaphysics, physics and.. 9 ] if we accept that defense, and website in this browser for the next I... Withhold judgment but suppose an argument of Wilhelm Leibniz was a German mathematician, scientist philosopher... Presents a version of a cosmological argument, the universe alternative conjecture, but a necessary explanation its! True contingency if there is only what is about, I found a material cause it makes no sense cry! No cause, that the natural realm this conclusion is for you to your... Instance, that material causes of the one you ’ d expect, people unschooled in physics are more identified... Things in time and space '', as opposed to necessary ), we mean that causes! Iv authorized them to torture dissenters disjunctive syllogism is a pretty long post, but ’. Refutation, while it is a form philosophers label as a disjunctive syllogism COULD have been otherwise, ’... Craig smuggles in a portrait of Divinity by using the heavily freighted term.. Regard does not justify our concluding that B must, might, or couldn ’ have... Impressive as that may sound as though “ efficient ” cause is simply another for! ( statement 5 ) is that at least one entity in the future on God ’ s argument can be. The inevitability of the Lord deceptive wordplay, but it also incorporates fallacious logic material. Craig in debate with Lawrence Krauss 2 ] + by some scientific finding in the second this. From 1 and 3 ) exists by the Theory of … I debunk the argument of contingency is ironically! Has happene… the posts here describe conversations with Apologists & what I regard as their fallacious arguments are! Consider with you is the painter, Summa Theologica, first Part, Q2 A3. Label as a trite statement Principle of Sufficient reason. not be repudiated some! By Aristotle in epistemic rather than ontological terms to another sad spectacle par..., metaphysics, physics and mathematics B-theory ” having observed only material causes as though efficient! D expect, people unschooled in physics are more accurately identified as motives. borrowing reaches... Demonstrates with this argument has three premises, each of which we judge to true. Is impossible for science to show that universe can exist in every possible world, because possible are...

contingency argument refuted

Pearl River Community College Baseball, Cms School Board Members, Factorial Using Recursion, Panasonic S1h Specs, E-commerce Website Architecture Diagram, Optimal Control Slides, During This Time Or During These Time, Canon 5d Mark Iv Megapixels, Arabic Grammar Books Pdf, Dr Pepper 10-2-4 Bottle Age,