If one accepts the Principle of Sufficient Reason as true, does that mean they naturally must accept the existence of God vis a vis cosmological argum...

If one accepts the Principle of Sufficient Reason as true, does that mean they naturally must accept the existence of God vis a vis cosmological arguments?

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    It depends what you mean by God, you can only posit a first principle using those arguments. The content of the first principle has to be reached by other means, like revelation or contemplative mysticism.

  2. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Well, if we think of cosmological arguments as, broadly speaking, going like this:

    There is an actual contingent. (i.e., by observation)

    If there is an actual contingent, there is a sufficient reason as to why it is how it is rather than otherwise. (i.e., by PSR)

    Therefore, there is a sufficient reason as to why it is how it is rather than otherwise.

    If there is a sufficient reason as to why it is how it is rather than otherwise, there is something necessary which is the ultimate ground of actual contingents. (i.e., the argument against the relevant infinite regress)

    Therefore, there is something necessary which is the ultimate ground of actual contingents.

    If there is something necessary which is the ultimate ground of actual contingents, God exists. (i.e., the argument for the properties of the first cause)

    Therefore, God exists.

    Then, in addition to challenging (2), i.e. the PSR, we could challenge (1), (4), or (6) as well. So the acceptance of the PSR does not per se suffice to warrant theism.

    That said, challenges to the PSR are probably the most important and influential style of objection to this kind of theistic argument, so, in the practical context of the relevant arguments, it does significantly strengthen the case for theism to accept the PSR. I.e., since it undercuts the most important and influential style of objection to this kind of theistic argument.

  3. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Principle of Sufficient

    If we assert that everything must have a reason, we face the problem of an infinite regress. That is, if every explanation requires a prior explanation, this chain of reasoning could potentially go on infinitely. This raises the question of whether there can be an ultimate explanation for everything.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      The PSR assumes that everything is contingent, meaning it depends on something else for its existence or occurrence. However, some philosophers argue that there could be necessary truths or entities that exist independently of any external reasons or causes. For example, mathematical truths are often considered to be necessary and not contingent on any particular explanation.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      The PSR assumes that everything is contingent, meaning it depends on something else for its existence or occurrence. However, some philosophers argue that there could be necessary truths or entities that exist independently of any external reasons or causes. For example, mathematical truths are often considered to be necessary and not contingent on any particular explanation.

      Yes it necessarily leads to an uncreated creator, a transcendent one as espoused in the 185 and 186 sermons in Nahj Al-Balagha, or one described by Plotinus.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Yes it necessarily leads to an uncreated creator
        what do you mean? how the creator become uncreated

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Alhamdulilah

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Allah Akbar

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Cute

          Alhamdulilah

          Based

          [...]
          Yes it necessarily leads to an uncreated creator, a transcendent one as espoused in the 185 and 186 sermons in Nahj Al-Balagha, or one described by Plotinus.

          Correct

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Principle of Sufficient
      Wrong interpterion for PSR, Principle of Sufficient Reason is a powerful and controversial philosophical principle stipulating that everything must have a reason, cause, or ground
      doesn't necessarily mean that there is no independent agents

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >doesn't necessarily mean that there is no independent agents
        So what are reasons for those independent agents? Since by the PSR they must have them

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >independent agents
      God

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        So by the PSR what is the reason for God?

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Not a problem in panentheism. God is fully transcendent, a "true infinite," in Hegel's sense, "in everything but contained in nothing," per Augustine.

  4. 7 months ago
    Anonymous
  5. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, given an abstract definition of god

  6. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    However, it's important to recognize that the PSR doesn't dictate a specific explanation for every particular thing or event. It allows for a variety of interpretations and does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that a personal, intelligent, or transcendent being (God) is the only possible explanation.

  7. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    correct, same way men can be women now, it's all metaphysical, you can reason anything into anything, even your desert demon is "real"

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Astonishingly teenaged post

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Recognizing that reddit scientism is moronic doesn't make anyone think that you tradcath/orthodox larpers are also not underage.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          True

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      you are moronic

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      you will never be a women

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        then your god doesn't exist

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          when you die you will know

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            when you die you won't know anything

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            you will know everything and you will see everything you did in your lifetime and angels might test you

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            literal marvel tier garbage

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            atheist with autism issues

  8. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Principle of sufficient reason states that EVERYTHING must have a reason or a cause. WHAT CAUSED GOD? If you deny God had a cause you're denying the principle of sufficient reason. The PSR disproves the cosmological argument if you accept it.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      No. All contingent things have a cause.

      Aquinas I QQ 2 Art 3, second way

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >No. All contingent things have a cause.
        Again a denial of the PSR. The principle of sufficient reason states that EVERYTHING must have a reason or cause. If you can pick and choose what it applies to it's worthless.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          You’re close. The reason for God’s existence is that His essence IS His existence. He has no cause of existence, but there is a reason for His existence.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The reason for God’s existence is that His essence IS His existence.
            Circular reasoning
            >He has no cause of existence
            A denial of the PSR. Christcucks can't even avoid contradicting themselves in less than three sentences

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/#Intr

            “For every fact F, there must be a sufficient reason F is the case”

            A thing is caused when its existence is brought into effect by an agent outside of itself, like dogs or trees. God was never brought into existence, as He is existence as such.

            However, the reason for God’s existence is that His essence is convertible with His existence. He who is.

            I hope that God will grace you with insight to see Him

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >However, the reason for God’s existence is that His essence is convertible with His existence. He who is.
            Circular reasoning. You can apply the same exact definition to the universe. The universe is that which necessarily exists. You've given up on the PSR and shifted to a blatant logical fallacy. Bible thumpers are pathetic morons.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            That would be the case, if the facts regarding the necessary attributes of God were other than they are.

            https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1003.htm#article1

            Also see the third way of Aquinas, where he builds off the work of Avicenna regarding the attributes of a necessary vs contingent being

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >if the facts regarding the necessary attributes of God were other than they are.
            There are no "facts" regarding the necessary attributes of God. There are things people have made up to fit their arguments but the attributes of God are a subjective definition. I define God to be a ridiculous child's story that drooling morons believe in. Sorry the "facts" say you're a drooling moron. Say it with me again, just because you imagine something doesn't make it true.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >There are no "facts" regarding the necessary attributes of God.

            Wrong. Given that God must be pure actuality, certain attributes follow.

            You can judge anything to be the case, but your judgment may not conform to reality, which means you’d be wrong, as truth is the conforming of the mind to reality.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Wrong. GIVEN that God must be pure actuality
            GIVEN. GIVEN. It's not GIVEN that God must be anything. GIVEN BY WHO? You can't even distinguish your own opinion from fact.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Quibbling, but given the reality of the principle of noncontradiction, there must be a being which is pure actuality

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >but given the reality of the principle of noncontradiction, there must be a being which is pure actuality
            WHY? THAT'S THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT AGAIN YOU FRICKING moron. THE ONE YOU'RE TRYING TO JUSTIFY

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Did you confuse the PNC with the cosmological argument? They’re different things

            https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contradiction/

            https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Did you confuse the PNC with the cosmological argument?
            Now you're just being dishonest
            >there must be a being which is pure actuality
            is the cosmological argument. Non-contradiction has nothing to do with God existing or not existing.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            But if you accept the PNC, you accept the impossibility of an infinite regress.

            Why do you want to avoid necessary conclusions? We’re all sinners in need of God. His yoke is easy and the burden light. Why reject Him?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >But if you accept the PNC, you accept the impossibility of an infinite regress.
            No that doesn't follow. That's part of the cosmological argument but the cosmological argument is stupid. If an infinite regress can't exist that means God can't be eternal and have existed an infinite amount of time before creating the universe. Again basic logical consistency is easily shown to exceed the intellectual horizons of Christians

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >No that doesn't follow. That's part of the cosmological argument but the cosmological argument is stupid.

            It does follow. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/infinite-regress/#RegrCont

            >If an infinite regress can't exist that means God can't be eternal and have existed an infinite amount of time before creating the universe.

            There was no time before the creation of the universe. Time is just the quantity of change.

            >Again basic logical consistency is easily shown to exceed the intellectual horizons of Christians.

            That’s also wrong just from Aquinas having existed

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >There was no time before the creation of the universe. Time is just the quantity of change.
            Brilliant. So God didn't exist BEFORE(implies time existing) the universe and therefore could not have caused it. Or even better this would allow an infinite regress of causes outside of time.Yours is a goofy incoherent position.
            >That’s also wrong just from Aquinas having existed
            Angels on the head of a pin guy. Great example of not being a moron.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I’ll resort to chastisement, as I think I’ve pretty conclusively demonstrated the truth of the Thomist position against your broadly Epicurean or Democritean position.

            You shouldn’t avoid the truth because you find it unpleasant at this moment. Reality itself is good, thus conformity of the mind to that reality is good. The existence of the Unmoved Mover, perfect actuality, is a necessary fact of reality. You have the necessary mental firepower to understand the proofs, so why do you continue to resist? Repent in dust and ashes and be welcomed like the prodigal son.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            So you've given up and admit arguments for God are deeply stupid and intellectually dishonest. All I could have asked for.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Are you at least 18?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Of course. Do you have a college degree with some type of formal training in logic? I'll answer for you, no you don't

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            do you need college degree to have critical thinking?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Having a college degree is a better indicator of being capable of critical thinking than being over 18. Churches are full of old people that haven't had a critical thought in their lives.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Having a college degree is a better indicator of being capable of critical thinking

            this prove nothing, having a college degree is overrated, you can be a moronic with a college degree and this one over 18 years old beat your ass because he have better genetics and can comprehend more

            you clearly haven't had a critical thought in your life that's why you reflect on people

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you can be a moronic with a college degree and this one over 18 years old beat your ass
            And you can be over 18 and be a total fricking moron. A college degree is a better indicator of intelligence than being over 18. Except in very few cases you have to be over 18 to even have a college degree.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Are you? If you are then this is deeply embarrassing.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Angels on the head of a pin guy.
            Source?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1052.htm
            Summa Theologica Question 52 Article 3
            Whether several angels can be at the same time in the same place?
            Shit is goofy as hell.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            That’s actually a really interesting exposition on immaterial substance. Nothing trivial like “dancing on the head of a pin” or anything like.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Nothing trivial like “dancing on the head of a pin” or anything like.
            It is entirely trivial and it is a direct exposition of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Goofy as shit and shows Aquinas as the moron he is.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            It’s just a discussion of how immaterial substances like angels would behave. It’s actually quite interesting, especially if you have materialist baggage you want to unravel. There’s no mention of dancing or anything of the sort in the text, so I doubt you read it. Aquinas comments on an objection regarding demonic possession, and I’d imagine you’d be focusing on that if you were aware of it.

            Unicorns necessarily exist as part of their essence. Therefore unicorns exist. Replace unicorns with whatever you want. This is why circular logic isn't allowed you can prove anything you want this way.

            What is so special about a unicorn’s essence that it must spontaneously and eternally will itself into existence? You can’t just claim these things. Are you familiar with the arguments describing God’s essence? Because that’s what you need to be asking instead. Nobody is simply declaring that a random, corporeal being, even a fictitious one like a unicorn, is self-caused because it wouldn’t make sense.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >There’s no mention of dancing or anything of the sort in the text, so I doubt you read it
            There is mention of angels colocating at a point hence "angels dancing on the head of a pin". It's goofy as frick.
            >What is so special about a unicorn’s essence that it must spontaneously and eternally will itself into existence? YOU CAN'T JUST CLAIM THESE THINGS
            Exactly. You claimed that God was necessary or pure actuality by definition. YOU CAN'T JUST CLAIM THESE THINGS. Your definition of God is exactly the same as my definition of unicorns.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >hence "angels dancing on the head of a pin"
            This is just your own goofy spin. And Aquinas debunks things like that as being impossible because the presence of one Angel would preclude the presence of angel. So what exactly is your problem?

            I take it that you’re not a big fan of philosophy and for depth of these problems go way over your head.

            >You claimed that God was necessary or pure actuality by definition.
            Again, it’s a wholly separate argument. But it’s not circular to carry forth the consequences of that argument into the PSR. Things are either self-caused or caused by something else. That’s all it says. You’d have to make an argument about why God’s essence can’t be perfect, fully actualized, etc. (without making a category error by trying to call red “blue” if that makes any sense) to debunk it. But that’s a topic for another thread. So make that thread.

            Case closed.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >So what exactly is your problem?
            The problem is it's a goofy trivial argument. Angels dancing on the head of a pin.
            >Again, it’s a wholly separate argument.
            So if questions of definition are a separate argument why did you object to my unicorn definition?
            >Things are either self-caused
            Circular argument
            >Things are either self-caused or caused by something else
            Also at least I've got you to admit it's stupid to assume the PSR then call something uncaused like you did above.
            >You’d have to make an argument about why God’s essence can’t be perfect, fully actualized, etc
            No you'd have to make an argument why God has those properties without just defining him to have them. Don't make me break out my unicorn definition.
            >Case closed.
            Agreed. As I've shown several times the PSR directly contradicts cosmological arguments. Per OP's question the answer is you can't believe in the PSR and the cosmological argument and be logically consistent.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >why God has those properties without just defining him to have them

            because he said so

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The problem is it's a goofy trivial argument.
            Not at all. If you posit that immaterial substances exist, then you have to explain how they work. That’s pretty normal. I don’t understand why that escapes your comprehension.
            >why did you object to my unicorn definition
            Because it sounded like you were trying to arbitrarily describe “red” as “having the property of blue” instead of trying to thoroughly investigate what is “red” and what is “blue.”
            >Circular argument
            Self-causation isn’t a circular argument if it follows from the properties of being. Saying that you woke up this morning and chose to skip breakfast because you have free will (self-caused action) isn’t a circular argument. You have free will as a virtue of being a human being.
            >Also at least I've got you to admit it's stupid to assume the PSR then call something uncaused like you did above.
            I make no distinction between self-caused and uncaused. Uncaused means nothing else caused it, which I reserve for the first mover.
            >Don't make me break out my unicorn definition.
            If all you’re going to do is describe something that looks like God (minus any contradiction of having material, unicorn-like properties, which would contradict God’s immaterial being), then all I would say is that you tried a sleight of hand where you named “blue” when you really should have said “red.” It doesn’t matter what you call it. This is just you trying to spin things in a negative light while parking yourself deeper into a corner.

            >why God has those properties without just defining him to have them

            because he said so

            The best way of arguing this point is saying that it’s impossible for God (chiefly, the bare bones “philosopher’s god” to exist. So start tackling what it means for something to be pure act and say why the universe doesn’t need such a being and that such a being can’t exist for such and such reasons.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I don’t understand why that escapes your comprehension.
            What escapes your comprehension about it being a goofy trivial argument about angels dancing on the head of a pin?
            >Self-causation isn’t a circular argument
            Brilliant. So what caused the universe? It caused itself. You can't claim that's a circular argument now.
            >free will (self-caused action)
            Even more brilliant. I have free will which means I'm self-caused so God can't have created me
            >Uncaused means nothing else caused it, which I reserve for the first mover
            Which again directly contradicts the PSR that says everything has a cause
            >It doesn’t matter what you call it
            Rofl so now you're reduced to claiming my made up unicorn is your God. Pathetic.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            You were already refuted yestarday in the posts above. So much so that you just stopped answering.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Huh? I got the anons yesterday to finally admit the PSR contradicts an uncaused God.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >angels dancing on the head of a pin
            The fact that dancing or pins aren’t mentioned, that explaining how things work is how things go, and that Aquinas rebutted that multiple angels can inhabit the same place? Like, you’re fractally dumb here. I don’t know why you insist on making a fool out of yourself.
            >Brilliant. So what caused the universe? It caused itself. You can't claim that's a circular argument now.
            Well, now you have to tell me what is essence of the universe is and why it is self-causing, even though it is filled with things that only cause each other. It can be done. You just have to make the argument instead of lazily claiming this or that.
            >Even more brilliant. I have free will which means I'm self-caused so God can't have created me
            Not so fast. Your being is only partially self-caused. I assume that you have a mother and a father (maybe he’s not really in the picture but that’s besides the point). Your creation wasn’t self-caused.
            >Which again directly contradicts the PSR that says everything has a cause
            The operative word was “else.” Uncaused and self-caused imply each other.
            >Rofl so now you're reduced to claiming my made up unicorn is your God. Pathetic.
            If you took blue and called it red, it’s still blue. You’re just being moronic with names. I’ve explained this like five times and you still don’t get it.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You just have to make the argument instead of lazily claiming this or that.
            EXACTLY. Where is the argument that God is necessary or pure actuality? You can't just define him like that. Just like you objecting to my definition of the universe as self-caused.
            >Not so fast. Your being is only partially self-caused.
            Epically brilliant. Now you've introduced the notion of partial self-causation. So how do we know God isn't partially self-caused? Do you see how this works. You make up some goofy shit to worm your way out of an argument and then I turn around and immediately apply it to God.
            >Uncaused and self-caused imply each other.
            Jeez you're just wildly flailing at this point. Self-caused and uncaused are two distinct things. See

            An axiomatic foundation of the universe makes just as much sense as an axiomatic foundation of God

            for some philosophical education.
            >If you took blue and called it red, it’s still blue. You’re just being moronic with names
            So let me get this straight you actually believe the unicorn I just made up exists? I've never had someone just fling themselves onto the bonfire of idiocy like this.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The best way of arguing this point is saying that it’s impossible for God (chiefly, the bare bones “philosopher’s god” to exist.

            very possible, God created us in his image and wisdom

            the probability of the existence of personal God is extremely High

            you just don't want your illusions to be destroyed, you are afraid of something

            what are you afraid of?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            you are moron

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            haha you really OWNED that 800 year old theologian!

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not the one who came up with angels on the head of a pin insult. The whole Enlightenment took a dump on Aquinas and the Scholastics

            If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning, concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion. -Hume

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >No that doesn't follow. That's part of the cosmological argument but the cosmological argument is stupid.

            It does follow. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/infinite-regress/#RegrCont

            >If an infinite regress can't exist that means God can't be eternal and have existed an infinite amount of time before creating the universe.

            There was no time before the creation of the universe. Time is just the quantity of change.

            >Again basic logical consistency is easily shown to exceed the intellectual horizons of Christians.

            That’s also wrong just from Aquinas having existed

            >There was no time before the creation of the universe. Time is just the quantity of change.
            Brilliant. So God didn't exist BEFORE(implies time existing) the universe and therefore could not have caused it. Or even better this would allow an infinite regress of causes outside of time.Yours is a goofy incoherent position.
            >That’s also wrong just from Aquinas having existed
            Angels on the head of a pin guy. Great example of not being a moron.

            I’ll resort to chastisement, as I think I’ve pretty conclusively demonstrated the truth of the Thomist position against your broadly Epicurean or Democritean position.

            You shouldn’t avoid the truth because you find it unpleasant at this moment. Reality itself is good, thus conformity of the mind to that reality is good. The existence of the Unmoved Mover, perfect actuality, is a necessary fact of reality. You have the necessary mental firepower to understand the proofs, so why do you continue to resist? Repent in dust and ashes and be welcomed like the prodigal son.

            NTA, but in my view the Principle of Sufficient reason is enough to necessitate the impossibility of an infinite regress, but it also exposes the incoherence of "contingency" or "cause".

            Suppose an infinite chain existed. Would it demand a cause? In a modal realist worldview, a thing can be "necessary" if its existence follows from the possibility of a universe, so it could be a necessary being (I'm leaving out Bertrand Russell's idea of a gratuitous being, because it violates the PSR). If the infinite regress is necessary, how could every part be contingent? If you remove one part, the entire necessary entity changes. IT no longer retains all its properties if a contingent being is removed, and therefore it is itself contingent.

            Since it is contingent, it demands a cause, leading to an infinite regress. Only this time, the regress is itself causeless and unnecessary, and cannot exist. My argument only applies to the infinite regress and NOT God.

            But the PSR already seems ill founded to me.

            1 - The idea of "cause" just seems to be another a-posteriori notion. There's no reason to give it metaphysical significance. There's no reason Bertrand Russell can't be correct about an infinite chain being both uncaused and not necessary.

            2 - By the above argument, it cannot function without postulating a necessary being, "caused" by noncontingent logical laws. It also requires that this being have something adjacent to "free will" mediating its creation, because everything caused by a necessary being in the strict PSR sense must also be necessary. Why should we accept the existence of such a being?

            Also I can tell you watch anticitizenx lol

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            In an infinite chain every link has a cause, it just doesn't have *the same* cause. So it doesn't actually violate anything.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            But this doesn’t involve my argument. The nature of the being changed by removing a contingent being. In my view, if a being is to be necessary, all aspects of it must be necessary. But all parts of the infinite regress are contingent. What then remains of its necessity?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's just presupposing the existence of relations. By application of Bradley's Regress, the distinction between the grounded and the ground collapses. What's left is a view on Being or substance in which it is undifferentiated and necessary in every respect.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >But this doesn’t involve my argument. The nature of the being changed by removing a contingent being. In my view, if a being is to be necessary, all aspects of it must be necessary. But all parts of the infinite regress are contingent. What then remains of its necessity?
            I agree that the chain is not necessary. The view I wanted to put forward is that the explanation of the chain is reducible to the individual explanations of the links. If that's true, an infinite chain is not without explanation despite lacking a *unitary* explanation. So the PSR is satisfied.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            you are moron

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Thanks Hegel bro. I disagree with quite a bit of Hegel, as he’s more an Anselmian entertaining Kant’s autism, but he’s very obviously a theistic fellow traveler.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Christcucks can't even avoid contradicting themselves in less than three sentences

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >No. All contingent things have a cause.
      Again a denial of the PSR. The principle of sufficient reason states that EVERYTHING must have a reason or cause. If you can pick and choose what it applies to it's worthless.

      What caused the PSR? If you appeal to PSR without referring to its cause you're denying the PSR.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >If you appeal to PSR without referring to its cause you're denying the PSR.
        Boom. PSR is self-contradictory so any apologetic Jesus shit based on it is already debunked.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          It's more like you didn't understand what PSR means because it is not literally used in order to posit an illogical infinite chain of causes, even against itself. It is more of a logical axiom that is used to posit logically a First Principle of all causes and reasons; in other terms, there is a reason for a First Principle not to be dependent on another. But personally I find a rationalist apologetic like that wont of cheesy souled beings.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It is more of a logical axiom that is used to posit logically a First Principle of all causes and reasons
            So it's a logical axiom that is used to posit it's OWN FRICKING COUNTEREXAMPLE? Again a First Principle, Cause, Being, or whatever without that is not caused by anything is a direct contradiction of the PSR.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's not a counterexample, the PSR is itself an axiom.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It's not a counterexample
            You fricking moron I even put the counterexample in the next fricking sentence.A FIRST PRINCIPLE WITHOUT A CAUSE DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS THE PSR SAYING !!!EVERYTHING!!! HAS A CAUSE

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            That is not a counterexample because there is a reason why the first principle must be the first principle you braindead moron. Nobody in history has understood the PSR as something that says: there must be infinite regress to everything.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >That is not a counterexample
            >Every X must have a cause
            >Here is an X without a cause but it doesn't contradict what I JUST FRICKING SAID
            GTFO with this stupid braindead christcuck shit.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous
          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            You’re irredeemably moronic, I give up.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            So explain to me how what I just wrote isn't a contradiction

            Everything has property A
            Here is something without property A

            Is this a contradiction? Yes or no. It's an easy, easy question that anyone who has even a basic grasp of logic can answer.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            The PSR does not posit that everything has the property of contingency. This is what you are assuming. But that everything must need a reason why it is. The uncaused cause is not only the reason for the following chain but the reason for its own necessity, like Reason’s own necessity for explaining (grounding) things.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The uncaused cause is not only the reason for the following chain but the reason for its own necessity
            Already touched on here

            >The reason for God’s existence is that His essence IS His existence.
            Circular reasoning
            >He has no cause of existence
            A denial of the PSR. Christcucks can't even avoid contradicting themselves in less than three sentences

            . You've given up on saying the first cause is uncaused(even though you're still calling it uncaused) since being uncaused directly contradicts the PSR. Instead you've switched to the blatant logical fallacy of circular reasoning. SOMETHING CAN'T BE IT"S OWN REASON FOR EXISTING.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I’m not trying to prove the cogency of the PSR, because I don’t think it special in any way besides being the form of cognition of experience, I’m just trying to show you that that Reason itself posits the stop to a regression in order to ground the very chain of grounded things just like Reason is SUFFICIENT to explain things, it doesn’t need the reason of reason. You are demanding the reason of A = A.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            So you've given up claiming
            1. God is uncaused since that violates the PSR
            2. God is his own reason for existence since that is just a circular argument.
            The whole point of the thread was arguments for God not about the cogency of the PSR. And all of the arguments for God presented here have been moron grade bs that is easily shown to deeply confused and illogical.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            The point of the thread was an argument for God grounded on the PSR, so obviously on its cogency.
            I was trying to show you how they take the argument to be in order to prove God/Uncaused Cause in the manner that Reason is sufficient not only other things but itself. The infinite regress of things, the ubiquitous contingency of things is an illogical rebuttal in that it goes even beyond Eleatic monism denying not only phenomena but the noumenon too (since it would need a cause etc.), so that what is taken to be real is only negation. Since there are things that exist, there must be a thing that explains them all, otherwise nothing would be explainable (not even exist in infinite cause regress) and the Principle and Reason useless. That’s all

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Since there are things that exist, there must be a thing that explains them all
            Sure and that thing is the universe. The universe needs no explanation or God. The whole point of the PSR song and dance is to try and say the universe needs a reason but God doesn't. But as we've both agreed exempting God like that is stupid and contradictory. So you're not left with an argument for God at all.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            An axiomatic foundation of the universe makes just as much sense as an axiomatic foundation of God

            Of course the beef is with God.
            But the universe would need an explanation because it is composed, it has parts and contingency.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >But the universe would need an explanation because it is composed, it has parts and contingency.
            Isn't the Trinity a big fricking deal in Christianity? Three fricking parts. And I can just call the universe necessary just like you're calling God necessary. You have no reason to call God necessary besides just saying it by fiat. And I don't accept your definition. If I say unicorns are defined as necessary that doesn't make them real

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >appealing to Trinity out of nowhere
            Lol
            >I can call the universe necessary just like you’re calling god
            No you can’t and I literally explained why. Why are you so worked up with that? You sound mentally unstable.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >No you can’t and I literally explained why.
            Why not? Where did you explain it? I know it's not by appeal to the PSR since again THE SAME EXACT ARGUMENT CAN BE MADE AGAINST GOD USING THE PSR.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Where did you explain
            Here

            [...]
            Of course the beef is with God.
            But the universe would need an explanation because it is composed, it has parts and contingency.

            >the same argument can be made against God using the PSR
            It can’t and I explained this here

            The point of the thread was an argument for God grounded on the PSR, so obviously on its cogency.
            I was trying to show you how they take the argument to be in order to prove God/Uncaused Cause in the manner that Reason is sufficient not only other things but itself. The infinite regress of things, the ubiquitous contingency of things is an illogical rebuttal in that it goes even beyond Eleatic monism denying not only phenomena but the noumenon too (since it would need a cause etc.), so that what is taken to be real is only negation. Since there are things that exist, there must be a thing that explains them all, otherwise nothing would be explainable (not even exist in infinite cause regress) and the Principle and Reason useless. That’s all

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Here

            [...]


            Of course the beef is with God.
            But the universe would need an explanation because it is composed, it has parts and contingency.
            That's not a fricking explanation it's just you saying the universe is contingent and expecting me to believe it. Why is the universe contingent and God isn't? You claimed you had an explanation so where is it?
            >It can’t and I explained this here

            The point of the thread was an argument for God grounded on the PSR, so obviously on its cogency.


            I was trying to show you how they take the argument to be in order to prove God/Uncaused Cause in the manner that Reason is sufficient not only other things but itself. The infinite regress of things, the ubiquitous contingency of things is an illogical rebuttal in that it goes even beyond Eleatic monism denying not only phenomena but the noumenon too (since it would need a cause etc.), so that what is taken to be real is only negation. Since there are things that exist, there must be a thing that explains them all, otherwise nothing would be explainable (not even exist in infinite cause regress) and the Principle and Reason useless. That’s all
            Again no explanation given. Why can the casual chain stop with God but not with the universe? WHY?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >it's just you saying the universe is contingent
            I explained that it is so because it is composed, has parts that are contingent.
            >Why is the universe contingent and God isn't?
            I already said why, God is the necessary cause.

            >Why can the causal chain stop with god but not universe?
            Because God is not composed like the universe is, he has no parts as the universe has, and is necessary unlike the universe.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why is Allah by definition necessary?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            What do you mean?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            You said Allah is the necessary cause.
            You said Allah is not composed.

            How do you know this?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            That is what he is explaining anon...

            Also read sermon 185 186 of Nahj Al-Balagha

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous
          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            An axiomatic foundation of the universe makes just as much sense as an axiomatic foundation of God

  9. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yes. Aquinas, second way. That people accept causality, and not the First Cause is due to their sin and moronation

  10. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    If one MUST accept the existence of God via reason, God MUST believe in you. It's nicer to keep the relationship voluntary. You don't want your parents to love you because they have to, but because they want to.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      God believe in us as long as we have faith
      you can't compare God omnibenevolent unconditional love with your parents

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Then you would think that via a system, God would let us know clearly HOW to have faith, but the means to achieving faith are either different per region or muddied among individuals, leading to faithlessness. Example: if somebody tells me 'Have faith', which rarely occurs, I'd go 'Huh? How? And must it be via your method?' Not that I am not trying to be faithful, but trying only seems to make me be less faithful, just for the sole reason that I'm trying too hard.

        Sources claiming that their medium of achieving faith lead to different methodologies being put forward and cooperating and competiting. Maybe it's like a mathematical question, where the method matters but only if the answer is correct.

        I find it ironic that you post on a literature forum a picture with a filename of somebody who in literature is the espousal of comparing God's omnibenevolent love with his parents'.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Then you would think that via a system, God would let us know clearly HOW to have faith

          you can read the bible and you have unlimited sources in the internet about how to have more faith, you have to work anon
          why do you want it to be so easy

  11. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    OP I hope you’re paying attention to this thread because you’re getting good arguments for and against your question

  12. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yes.

  13. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Thats a drawing of gabe newell

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      No

  14. 7 months ago
    Anonymous
  15. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Argument from Contingency: Plato, The Laws; Aristotle, Metaphysics (Book Lambda), al-Farabi, ibn Rushd, ibn Sina (Avicenna), Aquinas, Copleston, Adler, Geisler, Koons.

    The Argument From Sufficent Reson (PSR): Leibniz, S. Clarke, R. Taylor.

    The Kalam argument: al-Ghazzali, Maimonides, William Lane Craig

  16. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    "God" is a projection of the super ego onto the external universe, so no.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      wrong, it's a different perspective to tell it but it's not the ultimate truth

  17. 7 months ago
    Anonymous
  18. 7 months ago
    Anonymous
  19. 7 months ago
    Anonymous
  20. 7 months ago
    Anonymous
  21. 7 months ago
    Anonymous
  22. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Praise the LORD of HOSTS YHWH

  23. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Plenty of atheists bite this bullet, the bullet they don't bite is the nature of this "God", and I've yet to see anything compelling that indicates any one particular "God" we speak of corresponds to the unmoved-mover.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      that's what i intended

  24. 7 months ago
    Anonymous
  25. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >PSR regards causes for the existence of beings
    Aren't we fricking talking about God's existence? By the PSR there must be a cause for God's existence. If God is uncaused that is a direct contradiction of the PSR

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      He is not “uncaused” properly speaking. He is caused by the fact that the world is possible, and god morally exists in all possible worlds (necessity). This terminates the causal chain

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >He is not “uncaused” properly speaking
        So what caused him?
        >He is caused by the fact that the world is possible, and god morally exists in all possible worlds (necessity). This terminates the causal chain
        Ah stupid fricking circular reasoning again. God is his own fricking cause lol. Christcucks are so fricking stupid and they don't even know it. Not to mention you've jumped ship from the cosmological argument since I BTFO of that and have switched to an ontological one about God's necessity. You can't just define shit into existence. If I say unicorns are defined as necessary that doesn't make them real

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          >God is his own fricking cause lol.

          Learn to read before going on Oyish. God is not his own cause. He is caused by the possibility of the world, on which his existence is contingent.

          >Not to mention you've jumped ship from the cosmological argument

          I’m not the person you think I am. The only other posts I have made is,

          He is not “uncaused” properly speaking. He is caused by the fact that the world is possible, and god morally exists in all possible worlds (necessity). This terminates the causal chain

          ,

          [...]

          ,

          [...]
          [...]
          [...]

          NTA, but in my view the Principle of Sufficient reason is enough to necessitate the impossibility of an infinite regress, but it also exposes the incoherence of "contingency" or "cause".

          Suppose an infinite chain existed. Would it demand a cause? In a modal realist worldview, a thing can be "necessary" if its existence follows from the possibility of a universe, so it could be a necessary being (I'm leaving out Bertrand Russell's idea of a gratuitous being, because it violates the PSR). If the infinite regress is necessary, how could every part be contingent? If you remove one part, the entire necessary entity changes. IT no longer retains all its properties if a contingent being is removed, and therefore it is itself contingent.

          Since it is contingent, it demands a cause, leading to an infinite regress. Only this time, the regress is itself causeless and unnecessary, and cannot exist. My argument only applies to the infinite regress and NOT God.

          But the PSR already seems ill founded to me.

          1 - The idea of "cause" just seems to be another a-posteriori notion. There's no reason to give it metaphysical significance. There's no reason Bertrand Russell can't be correct about an infinite chain being both uncaused and not necessary.

          2 - By the above argument, it cannot function without postulating a necessary being, "caused" by noncontingent logical laws. It also requires that this being have something adjacent to "free will" mediating its creation, because everything caused by a necessary being in the strict PSR sense must also be necessary. Why should we accept the existence of such a being?

          Also I can tell you watch anticitizenx lol

          Also this is logically equivalent to the cosmological argument, you’re just kinda stupid

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      He is not “uncaused” properly speaking. He is caused by the fact that the world is possible, and god morally exists in all possible worlds (necessity). This terminates the causal chain

      >He is not “uncaused” properly speaking
      So what caused him?
      >He is caused by the fact that the world is possible, and god morally exists in all possible worlds (necessity). This terminates the causal chain
      Ah stupid fricking circular reasoning again. God is his own fricking cause lol. Christcucks are so fricking stupid and they don't even know it. Not to mention you've jumped ship from the cosmological argument since I BTFO of that and have switched to an ontological one about God's necessity. You can't just define shit into existence. If I say unicorns are defined as necessary that doesn't make them real

      NTA but Aquinas argues that things either are caused by virtue of their essence or they are caused by something beyond them. Most things require a cause because there’s nothing about their essence that says they have to exist in such and such fashion. e.g. we don’t have deer spontaneously generating themselves into existence because of the way they’re built. instead, they’re caused by other deer giving birth in the short-term, evolutionary pressures in the long-term. this is what Aquinas calls the existence-essence distinction (esse-essentia in Latin). God exists because He is pure act, meaning He is perfect, unchanging, complete, finished, etc. That means that nobody could have generated Him. So He had to be uncaused/self-caused, and there is no existence-essence distinction for Him. In fact, if it were any different, then God would not be God, and we would have to look for something greater than the imposter, which would then be the God we were looking for all along. It has to be like that by definition.

      Now, why God is pure act and has to have the properties I’ve described is a separate argument entirely. But it goes to show that God does not violate the PSR as the proper accounting of causes remains satisfied as long we are satisfied with this description of God.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >So He had to be uncaused/self-caused
        Already addressed here

        So you've given up claiming
        1. God is uncaused since that violates the PSR
        2. God is his own reason for existence since that is just a circular argument.
        The whole point of the thread was arguments for God not about the cogency of the PSR. And all of the arguments for God presented here have been moron grade bs that is easily shown to deeply confused and illogical.

        If God is uncaused that violates the PSR that OP took as an assumption
        If God is self-caused that's circular logic
        Both are stupid and incoherent

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          I don’t see how God being self-caused is circular logic if it follows from His essence.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Unicorns necessarily exist as part of their essence. Therefore unicorns exist. Replace unicorns with whatever you want. This is why circular logic isn't allowed you can prove anything you want this way.

  26. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    It doesn't necessitate a conscious creator and there isn't even any reason to accept it. Anyways this is an off topic thread.

  27. 7 months ago
    Anonymous
  28. 7 months ago
    Anonymous
  29. 7 months ago
    Anonymous
  30. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    which universe? do you know anything?

  31. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    The existence of god is not sufficiently reasonable

  32. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    The same moron from yesterday still raving against what was already explained to him by different anons. Absolutely deranged. This is an argument for me to return to being a christian.

  33. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Someone's confused and it's not him. He was responding to my post and you're not me.

  34. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    What is there to read?
    Every X has a cause
    This X doesn't have a cause
    Is this a contradiction or not?

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      This was explained in those posts.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >This was explained in those posts.
        I know I explained it into the ground. Those anons finally begrudgingly stopped calling God uncaused and using the PSR at the same time.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Read the interaction. After they explained why God is uncaused and how the PSR leads to uncaused cause, you asked something about Allah which others anons answered. I know nothing about Allah though.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I said nothing about Allah but if they said God was uncaused and used the PSR at the same time they are again committing a comically basic logical error
            Every X has a cause
            This X doesn't have a cause
            Is this a contradiction or not?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            It is not a logical error, nor a contradiction. This was explained here

            The point of the thread was an argument for God grounded on the PSR, so obviously on its cogency.
            I was trying to show you how they take the argument to be in order to prove God/Uncaused Cause in the manner that Reason is sufficient not only other things but itself. The infinite regress of things, the ubiquitous contingency of things is an illogical rebuttal in that it goes even beyond Eleatic monism denying not only phenomena but the noumenon too (since it would need a cause etc.), so that what is taken to be real is only negation. Since there are things that exist, there must be a thing that explains them all, otherwise nothing would be explainable (not even exist in infinite cause regress) and the Principle and Reason useless. That’s all

            , here

            [...]

            , here

            >it's just you saying the universe is contingent
            I explained that it is so because it is composed, has parts that are contingent.
            >Why is the universe contingent and God isn't?
            I already said why, God is the necessary cause.

            >Why can the causal chain stop with god but not universe?
            Because God is not composed like the universe is, he has no parts as the universe has, and is necessary unlike the universe.

            etc.
            I thought you were this anon here

            Why is Allah by definition necessary?

            . Also because you asked about the Trinity in the middle of the discussion.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It is not a logical error, nor a contradiction
            And this is the end of this conversation. If you can't admit
            Every X has a cause
            This X doesn't have a cause
            is a contradiction you're too stupid to be reasoned with.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            But it was explained the reason for it.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >This X doesn't have a cause
            will never reveal the cause of it's existence, but it's literally exists

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Allah is uncaused. If you want to argue his essence then make another thread. But it’s logical to carry over the consequences of Allah’s essence over into PSR.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >But it’s logical to carry over the consequences of Allah’s essence over into PSR.
            And if you do and Allah is uncaused that directly contradicts the PSR. WTF is wrong with you guys that you can't understand this. If you claim everything has property X and then immediately give a counterexample of something without property X that contradicts your initial claim.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            You are stupid lol

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Every X has a cause
            This X doesn't have a cause
            Is this a contradiction or not?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            It isn't and it was explained why above.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It isn't and it was explained why above.
            Of course it is a contradiction. If you can't even see that you're too stupid to reason with.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            It was explained above. Read the posts above.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            There is nothing to fricking explain. You're claiming
            Every X has a cause
            This X doesn't have a cause
            is not a contradiction. It absolutely is by basic rules of logic. You've failed miserably. If every X has a property then that means YOU CAN'T FIND AN X WITHOUT THAT PROPERTY

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            But it was told already dozens of time how that is not the case because it is not “every x has a therefore another x [which is not an x] has a”

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >But it was told already dozens of time how that is not the case because it is not “every x has a therefore another x [which is not an x] has a”
            THEN JUST FRICKING SAY THAT. So either you don't agree with the PSR or you don't believe God is uncaused. Either way OP's post about the PSR and the cosmological argument doesn't apply to you since you don't believe in one or the other.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Just fricking say what you idiot? There must be a first cause just like there must be a principle, otherwise the endless series of things would only assert a universal negation of everything since there would only be an infinite chain of dependence nothing at all being actual

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >There must be a first cause just like there must be a principle
            So now your back to claiming an uncaused cause and the PSR at the same time. Which you just said here

            But it was told already dozens of time how that is not the case because it is not “every x has a therefore another x [which is not an x] has a”

            you weren't doing. You're a drooling fricking moron. I bet you're in diapers slobbering this shit out over a keyboard

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, the principle/uncaused cause/first mover is not a contingent being you absolute braindead frickwit, meaning it is not a x

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            So now you've shifted away from claiming everything has a cause to everything CONTINGENT has a cause. Again just fricking say that instead of claiming
            Every X has a cause
            This X doesn't have a cause
            is not a contradiction.
            But this is trivial to counter by just calling the universe not contingent so it doesn't need a cause.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            The universe is contingent as it was explained here why

            [...]
            Of course the beef is with God.
            But the universe would need an explanation because it is composed, it has parts and contingency.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Your "explanation" is just claiming the universe is contingent and expecting me to believe it. So now I claim the universe is necessary and not contingent and expect you to believe me. You've lost the grasp the PSR has on the universe by changing it from everything to everything contingent. Your argument has fallen apart in your attempt to avoid a contradiction that you repeatedly denied existed.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            You are so stupid lol
            Like a child

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Rofl you're calling me stupid? After repeatedly denying an obvious contradiction was a contradiction. And running away with your tail between your legs by changing what you were claiming

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not the same anon who was explaining it to you. I just read your replies and thought you were stupid, and said it to you twice lol

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I’m not expecting anything from a moron like you, I’m just exposing the things you ask logically. The universe is not necessary because it is composed of parts and parts that are contingent. The universe is not what it is separated from the things that constitute it.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The universe is not necessary because it is composed of parts and parts that are contingent
            How do you know the parts are contingent? Again you're not understanding how necessity and contingency are used. You don't just get to arbitrarily pick and choose what you want to be necessary or contingent. We have no way of knowing objectively whether something is necessary or contingent other than assuming it to be one way or the other or deriving it to be so from prior reasoning. Assuming the universe is necessary is exactly the same as assuming God is necessary.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            It is not the same. God is not physical, he has no parts, not composed, not dependent on contingent things that constitute itself (moron, the moon, stars, you, nothing of that is necessary because dependent on a myriad of causes), but the universe is.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Again this is just you claiming God isn't contingent but the universe is. I claim the universe isn't contingent and God doesn't exist. You have no argument besides just raging and insisting I believe what you tell me. Tell me why God is not contingent without just assuming or defining God not be contingent. You can't fricking do it. All of the ontological proof start by defining God to be necessary which is clearly goofy and would let you prove anything

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I’m not just claiming it, I’m explaining (repeatedly) why it is that the universe is contingent and god (uncaused, necessary etc) isn’t.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I’m not just claiming it, I’m explaining (repeatedly)
            No you're not. Why is God not contingent? You've talked about parts and composition but said nothing about contingency. And as pointed out above the whole universe could be necessary all of it's parts included. It's called modal collapse and has no actual disproof besides people not liking it. Or the singularity at the beginning of the universe could have been the necessary thing that led to the universe of contingent things. You have yet to give any reason why these things can't be necessary and you have yet to give any reason why God has to be necessary.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I literally talk about contingency above. The universe is contingent on its parts in order to be the universe it is, and the parts are contingent on themselves, none of them are necessary because they are all bound by a chain of cause effect organization.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >This X doesn't have a cause

      This X is caused by the possibility of the universe. By God's definition, he exists in all possible universes. You can dispute the rationality of this assertion, but your struggle to even understand it makes me doubtful that you have anything relevant to say on the matter

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >This X is caused by the possibility of the universe.
        So God isn't uncaused in your formulation. That isn't the cosmological argument and the PSR doesn't contradict it.
        >By God's definition, he exists in all possible universes
        By my definition of God he doesn't exist. I don't accept proof by definition and I doubt you will accept it either in the case of my definition.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          >I don't accept proof by definition and I doubt you will accept it either in the case of my definition.

          I don't accept the proof either, but it's not a proof by definition. Assuming that
          1 - an infinite regress is impossible
          2 - in order for a universe to be "possible", it must abide by the PSR

          From these two it is obvious that there must be a "God", which exists in all possible universes, as he follows from the first two which apply in all possible universes. These are the end of the causal chain.

          >That isn't the cosmological argument

          It's essentially the same argument in different christian puffery. Replace "caused" with "contingent", that is, "Nonexistent in a possible universe".

  35. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    bump

  36. 7 months ago
    Anonymous
  37. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Schopenhauer wrote an entire book disagreeing with this.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *