The Cosmological Argument

[punkforchrist]

Regarding the existence of a necessary being, it’s important to note that a necessary being’s existence is perfectly consistent with an infinite regress.

1. Something exists.

I doubt anyone will disagree with that! (Of course, I’m sure you can find someone.) In order to doubt that I exist, I would first have to exist in order to doubt it.

2. Something can exist only if there is such a thing as existence.

This is pretty straight-forward. If there is no such thing as existence, then nothing can exist, which is patently false.

3. Existence itself is Pure Being.

What’s the difference between a real dollar bill and an imaginary one? Both have the same essence (dollar-bill-ness), but surely the difference is that the real dollar bill has existence!

Essence - what a thing is
Existence - that a thing is (e.g. its being, actuality, or reality)

What, then, is the essence of existence other than Existence Itself? (“Pure Being” and “Pure Existence” are synonyms, but you can call it whatever you like.)

4. Therefore, Pure Being exists.

(4) follows from (1)-(3). Now, Pure Being must be both necessary and unique. First, it must be necessary because the very essence of existence is to exist. If Pure Being were to ever not-exist, it would be violating its own essence, which is contradictory. Moreover, Pure Being must be unique (one, and not many), since in order for there to be more than one Pure Being, there must be distinctions between them. However, to be distinct from existence is to be non-existence.

This is a simplification of Thomas Aquinas’ argument in De Ente et Essentia. I’m curious to hear everyone’s thoughts.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Moreover, Pure Being must be unique (one, and not many), since in order for there to be more than one Pure Being, there must be distinctions between them. However, to be distinct from existence is to be non-existence.

I found this part of the argument interesting. I have read it before but i haven’t really understood it until now.

If i am correct, you are saying that it is logically possible to make distinctions between essences because one is not fundamentally the same as the other. They are both categorically essences, however it is not true that any one thing ought to exist as that or this particular essence because essence is not the same as esse. To be Paul, does not necessitate that Paul ought to exist, or that “essence” ought to be Paul. Thus there can be difference with out contradiction; which means that you can make distinctions when something is contingently true or real. However, that which is esse is necessarily above all categorical distinctions because it is that which is needed first before there can be contingent distinctions. That is to say if something is absolute existence, the only difference there can be is nothing; and nothing is not something that can exist.

Is that what you mean?

 

[wanstronian]

A possibility is not a substantial reason for rejecting a conclusion to which you can present no alternative. It is reasonable to accept any consistent explanation that cannot be refuted.

Not really - not when an alternative is available. I have presented an alternative. I have no particular leanings towards one conclusion or the other, but I have shown that the ‘necessary being’ conclusion is falsely arrived at - even if the conclusion itself may coincidentally be correct, for all we know.

Yet atheists have used the principle of economy to attempt to disprove the existence of God.

Well I already knew you had a habit (mission?) of misrepresenting atheism, but you manifest it here again, and it’s my duty to point out that atheists don’t attempt to disprove the existence of God.

But even if you weren’t using my comment as a platform to attack a straw man, the point I made was that we didn’t have enough information to select which was the more economical explanation. Not that a less economical one was correct. It’s a shame you can’t stay on topic. It reminds me of our recent discussion on morality, where instead of substantiating a single one of your claims, you just kept on throwing new assertions into the mix. I just can’t take you seriously any more - you spend all your time soapboxing ill-thought-out guff.

It seems a matter of selecting criteria to arrive at one’s preferred explanation…
If that is the case it is more reasonable to be an agnostic rather than an atheist…

Again, a fundamental lack of understanding of subject matter on your part - you seem to think that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive.

Why do you bother?

 

[wanstronian]

the necessary being isnt the premise of the argument, its the conclusion. however, its not a misuse of the PSR, because im not proving anything with the PSR. you asked why the necessary being cant be a violation of the PSR, and i told you.

except i keep posting why this isnt so and you keep dodging answering these.

**1. an infinite number of contingent beings are no more capable of causing themselves than a single contingent being.

A) if they pass from potential to actual in masse they still require a cause. if not this is a violation of the PSR. a POOF! theory, they happened without a cause.

B) if they pass from potential to actual in any kind of order, they still require a necesssary being.

C) if they have always been actual, then they are really necessary beings fitting that definition.

this should eliminate an ‘infinite regression of contingent beings’ **

you havent adressed any of these.

which i have repeatedly, yet you ignore the reason.

again.

**as ive mentioned before a necessary being must exist, because its non-existence entails a logical contradiction.

1. contingent beings exist
2. an existent nothing is a logical contradiction. **

yes i did right here.

it seems that existence is uniform, either thigs are or they are not. anything else would violate the law of non-contradiction. how does soemthing exist, but not exist without creating a logical impossibility?

can you see it now? its in the bolded right here!

then stop doing it and adress the issues. these specifically.

**as ive mentioned before a necessary being must exist, because its non-existence entails a logical contradiction.

1. contingent beings exist
2. an existent nothing is a logical contradiction. **

and

**1. an infinite number of contingent beings are no more capable of causing themselves than a single contingent being.

A) if they pass from potential to actual in masse they still require a cause. if not this is a violation of the PSR. a POOF! theory, they happened without a cause.

B) if they pass from potential to actual in any kind of order, they still require a necesssary being.

C) if they have always been actual, then they are really necessary beings fitting that definition.

this should eliminate an ‘infinite regression of contingent beings’ **

you havent adressed any of these.

no, i accuse people of dodging when they ignore refutations of their argument and do not address them, as you have repeatedly done. answer them!

im happy to talk about the flaws you see, only you dont adress it when i refute them. you ignore the refutations and repeat your arguemtn as though nothing were said

you havent refuted anything, youve simply insisted on some logically impossible structures and refused to addtress the issues that invalidate them.

until this is settled all other points are moot, nor does the contingency argument show who G-d is, thats an entirely separate argument.

i am not going to move on to an entirely separate argumentl, before the basis of why G-d must exist is settled.

either adress these issues, or admit there is no refutation. you read some atheist websites and assumed they were right, noe that you are confronted you refuse to adress the issues.

how am i to take this as anything short of straight out cognitive dissonance?

I guess we’re done.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Not really - not when an alternative is available.

the alternative isnt available, and you have refused to adress it.

I have presented an alternative. I have no particular leanings towards one conclusion or the other, but I have shown that the ‘necessary being’ conclusion is falsely arrived at - even if the conclusion itself may coincidentally be correct, for all we know.

where? where is the specific argument that does that?

Well I already knew you had a habit (mission?) of misrepresenting atheism, but you manifest it here again, and it’s my duty to point out that atheists don’t attempt to disprove the existence of God.

the point I made was that we didn’t have enough information to select which was the more economical explanation.

one isnt even available.

 

[tonyrey]

A possibility is not a substantial reason for rejecting a conclusion to which you can present no alternative. It is reasonable to accept any consistent explanation that cannot be refuted.

An alternative which leads to total scepticism.

… I have shown that the ‘necessary being’ conclusion is falsely arrived at - even if the conclusion itself may coincidentally be correct, for all we know.

So you either believe everything is necessary, some things are necessary, nothing is necessary or necessity is an illusion…

… atheists don’t attempt to disprove the existence of God.

In that case they just ignore the existence of God!

…you seem to think that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive.

So you cannot know whether God exists yet you choose not to believe in God without having evidence that God does not exist…

 

[punkforchrist]

MindOverMatter2:

. . . Is that what you mean?

Yes, indeed.

It was Parmenides who argued that only one thing exists - namely, Pure Being. It was Aristotle and those after him (especially Thomas Aquinas) who introduced the distinction between essence and existence in order to avoid the conclusion that all is one. There can be many essences, but only one existence.

 

[wanstronian]

An alternative which leads to total scepticism.

In your wholly subjective opinion.

So you either believe everything is necessary, some things are necessary, nothing is necessary or necessity is an illusion…

Well done Einstein, that’s what I’ve already said. We CANNOT know. We lack sufficient evidence either way.

In that case they just ignore the existence of God!

No, they - we - do not believe there is any such thing as God. That’s different to ignoring the existence of something that does exist.

So you cannot know whether God exists yet you choose not to believe in God without having evidence that God does not exist…

Quite right - as you no doubt choose not to believe in the FSM, fairies, unicorns, celestial teapots and any number of other things the existence of which is unknowable, and for which no evidence exists.

 

[tonyrey]

An alternative which leads to total scepticism.

And you believe your opinion is wholly objective!

So you either believe everything is necessary, some things are necessary, nothing is necessary or necessity is an illusion…

We CANNOT know. We lack sufficient evidence either way.

If we cannot know it does not make sense to be an atheist…

In that case they just ignore the existence of God!

No, they - we - do not believe there is any such thing as God.

If you lack sufficient evidence you have no reason for not believing…

That’s different to ignoring the existence of something that does exist.

You are implying that God does not exist without having produced any evidence for your belief…

So you cannot know whether God exists yet you choose not to believe in God without having evidence that God does not exist…

Quite right - as you no doubt choose not to believe in the FSM, fairies, unicorns, celestial teapots and any number of other things the existence of which is unknowable, and for which no evidence exists.

Do you choose not to believe that you and other persons exist? What is the evidence that your mind exists? Where is all evidence located? In the outside world? What does all evidence consist of? What interprets all the evidence? Something in the outside world? Where is all knowledge located? In the outside world? How do you even know the outside world exists?

 

[wanstronian]

And you believe your opinion is wholly objective!

No - where did I say that? I might observe that you have a bald head, that doesn’t mean that I have a full head of hair. It’s misrepresentations like these that remove your chances of being taken seriously.

If we cannot know it does not make sense to be an atheist…

Are you even aware of what you’re suggesting? If you believe that this is true, then you are obliged to believe everything that* might *be possible, which is an infinite list.

Far more sensible and parsimonious, when faced with a hypothesis about which we have zero information, is to proceed on the assumption that the hypothesis is untrue; then reassess if and when supporting information is made available.

If you lack sufficient evidence you have no reason for not believing…

Then you must believe that fairies and unicorns exist, for you have insufficient evidence that they don’t.

You are implying that God does not exist without having produced any evidence for your belief…

Aaah, the good old theist battle cry, consistently made without any apparent awareness of the fallacy: ‘Prove that the thing for which there is no evidence, doesn’t exist.’ Okay - follow your own rules and prove that fairies don’t exist. Although hang on, we’ve already ascertained that you believe everything that hasn’t been categorically disproved!

Do you choose not to believe that you and other persons exist? What is the evidence that your mind exists? Where is all evidence located? In the outside world? What does all evidence consist of? What interprets all the evidence? Something in the outside world? Where is all knowledge located? In the outside world? How do you even know the outside world exists?

Ah, your pet hypothesis rears its head again. You’ll forgive me if I don’t bang my head against the wall pointing out its flaws - I learned my lesson last time.

 

[tonyrey]

And you believe your opinion is wholly objective!

You are lacking a sense of humour. You alleged that my opinion is “wholly subjective” without producing evidence of course…

Are you even aware of what you’re suggesting?

That is the sort of gratituitous assertion which does nothing to advance the discussion.

If you believe that this is true, then you are obliged to believe everything that might be possible, which is an infinite list.

You are omitting the context…

Far more sensible and parsimonious, when faced with a hypothesis about which we have zero information, is to proceed on the assumption that the hypothesis is untrue; then reassess if and when supporting information is made available.

You recently declared that the principle of economy is unwarranted in such contexts!

Then you must believe that fairies and unicorns exist, for you have insufficient evidence that they don’t.

You are ignoring the context once again.

Aaah, the good old theist battle cry, consistently made without any apparent awareness of the fallacy: ‘Prove that the thing for which there is no evidence, doesn’t exist.’ Okay - follow your own rules and prove that fairies don’t exist. Although hang on, we’ve already ascertained that you believe everything that hasn’t been categorically disproved!

You are ignoring the context once again.

Do you choose not to believe that you and other persons exist? What is the evidence that your mind exists? Where is all evidence located? In the outside world? What does all evidence consist of? What interprets all the evidence? Something in the outside world? Where is all knowledge located? In the outside world? How do you even know the outside world exists?

Ah, your pet hypothesis rears its head again. You’ll forgive me if I don’t bang my head against the wall pointing out its flaws - I learned my lesson last time.

In other words you evade the issue once again. Six unanswered questions this time! Let’s see if you can break your record…

BTW It is not my hypothesis but an established fact that** our sole source of direct knowledge is our thoughts, intuitions,feelings, perceptions, choices and decisions.** Have you never heard of the egocentric predicament? If you have why don’t you either admit it or refute it instead of resorting to pointless invective?

 

[wanstronian]

You are lacking a sense of humour. You alleged that my opinion is “wholly subjective” without producing evidence of course…

Apologies - you are quite right. I retract the comment. Now, as you made the assertion that my alternative leads ‘to total scepticism,’ perhaps you could substantiate that claim. Your personal scepticism I accept, but ‘total’ implies the opinion of the masses, if not unilateralism. Please substantiate.

That is the sort of gratituitous assertion which does nothing to advance the discussion.

It was a genuine question (not an assertion at all - don’t you know the difference?): you have stated, in several different ways so there can be no misunderstanding, that if there is something we cannot know, it makes no sense not to believe in it. I am genuinely curious as to whether you really believe this. You can accuse me of gratuitousness if you like, but that is ducking the question. As usual.

You are omitting the context…

Maybe I am. In that case, can you please explain how a lack of evidence for God is a poor reason not to believe in God, but a lack of evidence for fairies is a good reason not to believe in fairies. I’m interested in where you think the analogy falls down.

You recently declared that the principle of economy is unwarranted in such contexts!

No I didn’t, I said that we could not know which is the more economical explanation. It’s right there in post #61. I’ll repeat it to compensate for your short attention span:

the point I made was that we didn’t have enough information to select which was the more economical explanation. Not that a less economical one was correct.

Got it now?

You are ignoring the context once again.

You’re just back-pedalling because you realise you’ve said something incredibly stupid. But, to be clear, I repeat my statement above starting, ‘Maybe I am.’

You are ignoring the context once again.

As my previous comment. Please clarify the context, then differentiate the analogy.

In other words you evade the issue once again. Six unanswered questions this time! Let’s see if you can break your record…

Such irony! You indicate that I am the one talking garbage! Yet your obvious back-pedalling above belies your true thoughts.

BTW It is not my hypothesis but an established fact that** our sole source of direct knowledge is our thoughts, intuitions,feelings, perceptions, choices and decisions.** Have you never heard of the egocentric predicament? If you have why don’t you either admit it or refute it instead of resorting to pointless invective?

I don’t dispute this - but this is not what you said before. You’re changing the subject to try and get a toe-hold in an argument that you’ve comprehensively lost.

 

[wanstronian]

If we cannot know it does not make sense to be an atheist…

The thought occurs - your comment here may be a result of your ignorance/misrepresentation of what atheism is.

You do realise that atheism and agnosticism aren’t mutually incompatible, right? I think I speak for the majority of atheists when I say that most of us are agnostic.

To make it clear - I do not claim to know that God doesn’t exist. That would be as intellectually bereft as claiming to know that he does. What I do know is that I’ve never seen any evidence for God that stands up to even light scrutiny, and as a consequence there is no reason to believe in God. So I don’t.

 

[tonyrey]

To make it clear - I do not claim to know that God doesn’t exist. That would be as intellectually bereft as claiming to know that he does. What I do know is that I’ve never seen any evidence for God that stands up to even light scrutiny, and as a consequence there is no reason to believe in God. So I don’t.

What is the evidence that **you **exist - as far as others are concerned? I’m not referring to your body but your mind? Or do you equate your mind with your body? Let’s have a plain answer to that question. Then we can determine the limits of empiricism…

Now, as you made the assertion that my alternative leads ‘to total scepticism,’ perhaps you could substantiate that claim.

You believe your thoughts are caused by physical events which lack the power of reason. What guarantee is there they are reliable if you cannot choose what to think?

ou have stated, in several different ways so there can be no misunderstanding, that if there is something we cannot know, it makes no sense not to believe in it. I am genuinely curious as to whether you really believe this.

You are misrepresenting me once again. I did not refer to “something”. You may have forgotten the topic - which is concerned with whether there is a Necessary Being. There are only two possible answers - unless you believe there is more than one Necessary Being… If you cannot know which answer is correct you are not entitled to reject either out of hand.

In that case, can you please explain how a lack of evidence for God is a poor reason not to believe in God, but a lack of evidence for fairies is a good reason not to believe in fairies. I’m interested in where you think the analogy falls down.

For the reason I have just given. Fairies can hardly be regarded as Necessary Beings…

You recently declared that the principle of economy is unwarranted in such contexts!

No I didn’t, I said that we could not know which is the more economical explanation. It’s right there in post #61. I’ll repeat it to compensate for your short attention span:

If we cannot know which is the more economical explanation how can the use of that principle possibly be warranted in this context? It is not my attention span which is defective but your logic…

The point I made was that we didn’t have enough information to select which was the more economical explanation. Not that a less economical one was correct.

Got it now?

Your manoeuvres are desperate attempts to evade the fact that you have rejected the principle of economy** in this context**. Causa finita!

Six unanswered questions this time! Let’s see if you can break your record…

And still no response…

BTW It is not my hypothesis but an established fact that our sole source of direct knowledge is our thoughts, intuitions,feelings, perceptions, choices and decisions.

I don’t dispute this.

Good! Our intangible experiences are our sole source of direct knowledge yet you claim intangible evidence is less valuable and significant than physical evidence. How do you reach that conclusion?

 

[wanstronian]

What is the evidence that **you **exist - as far as others are concerned? I’m not referring to your body but your mind? Or do you equate your mind with your body? Let’s have a plain answer to that question. Then we can determine the limits of empiricism…

We’ve discussed this before, you’re just repeating your own subjective dogma which has no basis in reality.

You believe your thoughts are caused by physical events which lack the power of reason. What guarantee is there they are reliable if you cannot choose what to think?

Oh, so what you’re actually saying is that any statement inexorably leads to ‘total scepticism?’ I don’t think I need to respond to such a wacky notion!

You are misrepresenting me once again. I did not refer to “something”. You may have forgotten the topic - which is concerned with whether there is a Necessary Being. There are only two possible answers - unless you believe there is more than one Necessary Being… If you cannot know which answer is correct you are not entitled to reject either out of hand.

I have not forgotten the topic - it was you who generalised, not me.

Interestingly, I did ask WSP whether he thought there could be more than once Necessary Being, I didn’t get an answer. What do you think, and why?

And you’re still putting words in my mouth - I haven’t rejected either explanation out of hand - I have simply demonstrated that neither explanation can be relied upon. Why are you so consistently disingenous? Are you like this in real life, or is this just a forum persona?

For the reason I have just given. Fairies can hardly be regarded as Necessary Beings…

Why does an arbitrary label - a definition - make a difference to the practical question of whether an evidenceless entity should be believed in?

If we cannot know which is the more economical explanation how can the use of that principle possibly be warranted in this context? It is not my attention span which is defective but your logic…

Clearly not, as it was you who introduced and promoted the principle of economy, not me!

Your manoeuvres are desperate attempts to evade the fact that you have rejected the principle of economy** in this context**. Causa finita!

Manoeuvres!? I just showed you what I typed, which indisputably demonstrates the falsehood of your accusation! I know you have a habit of transferring your screw-ups onto your opponents, but this really takes the biscuit! It’s there in black and white (depending on your colour scheme…), it literally couldn’t be clearer and still you deny it! Incredible.

And still no response…

You’ve offered nothing of any substance that requires a response. I’ve pointed out the gaping flaws in your rhetoric. I know you see them, you’re just too dishonest to acknowledge them. As always.

Good! Our intangible experiences are our sole source of direct knowledge yet you claim intangible evidence is less valuable and significant than physical evidence. How do you reach that conclusion?

Where did I claim that? It would be a nonsensical claim - a lack of physical evidence has no greater or lesser impact than a lack of intangible evidence. Which costs more - zero pears or zero bananas?

I’ve had enough of this now. If you want to continue spouting rubbish then go ahead, I won’t respond any more. It’s like arguing with a gatepost.

I’ve achieved my goal in this thread - to satisfy myself that the Cosmological Argument fails when subjected to scrutiny. I’ve been honest, open and considerate of all comments put forward in support of the argument - all of them hinge on unwarranted assertion at one level or another.

 

[tonyrey]

What is the evidence that you exist - as far as others are concerned? I’m not referring to your body but your mind? Or do you equate your mind with your body? Let’s have a plain answer to that question. Then we can determine the limits of empiricism…

And you opted out before…

…you’re just repeating your own subjective dogma which has no basis in reality. .

Still no answers - just pointless repetition of false statements. The egocentric predicament was recognised before I was born!

You believe your thoughts are caused by physical events which lack the power of reason. What guarantee is there they are reliable if you cannot choose what to think?

Oh, so what you’re actually saying is that any statement inexorably leads to ‘total scepticism?’

I am questioning the reliability of thoughts, not implying they are** all** unreliable…

You are misrepresenting me once again. I did not refer to “something”. You may have forgotten the topic - which is concerned with whether there is a Necessary Being. There are only two possible answers - unless you believe there is more than one Necessary Being… If you cannot know which answer is correct you are not entitled to reject either out of hand.

I have not forgotten the topic - it was you who generalised, not me.

Not with regard to “something”.

Interestingly, I did ask WSP whether he thought there could be more than one Necessary Being, I didn’t get an answer. What do you think, and why?

Occams’ Razor.

I have simply demonstrated that neither explanation can be relied upon.

So you expect conclusive evidence for all your (dis)beliefs?

Why does an arbitrary label …- a definition - make a difference to the practical question of whether an evidenceless entity should be believed in?

Is causality arbitrary? Is necessity arbitrary? Your thinking so doesn’t make them so…

Why does an arbitrary label …- a definition - make a difference to the practical question of whether an evidenceless entity should be believed in?

It is only evidenceless for those who reject themselves as intangible entities. That is to be expected if they don’t believe in themselves as persons… Poor** things!**

Our intangible experiences are our sole source of direct knowledge yet you claim intangible evidence is less valuable and significant than physical evidence. How do you reach that conclusion?

Where did I claim that? It would be a nonsensical claim - a lack of physical evidence has no greater or lesser impact than a lack of intangible evidence. Which costs more - zero pears or zero bananas?

Your assumption that there is a lack of intangible evidence remains unsubstantiated.
BTW You seem to be implying that intangible evidence is at least as valuable and significant as physical evidence… That would be a remarkable concession…

I’ve achieved my goal in this thread - to satisfy myself that the Cosmological Argument fails when subjected to scrutiny. I’ve been honest, open and considerate of all comments put forward in support of the argument - all of them hinge on unwarranted assertion at one level or another.

You flatter yourself but no one else… It is simple to attack from an obscure position.
You haven’t even explained whether you believe in necessity. If you refuse to answer questions you make yourself invulnerable - but at the cost of credibility.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

We
Interestingly, I did ask WSP whether he thought there could be more than once Necessary Being, I didn’t get an answer. What do you think, and why?

why do you keep saying things you know are not true, when i can simply post the evidence? its like you think no one will know.

and this is the second time you have made the same false statement.

Erm, I asked whether you thought that more than one necessary being could exist. You haven’t answered this question.

yes i did right here.

it seems that existence is uniform, either thigs are or they are not. anything else would violate the law of non-contradiction. how does soemthing exist, but not exist without creating a logical impossibility?

can you see it now? its in the bolded right here!

can you see it the third time i posted it?

now, are you going to stop dodging and jumping threads when your cornered and answer these problems?

**1. an infinite number of contingent beings are no more capable of causing themselves than a single contingent being.

A) if they pass from potential to actual in masse they still require a cause. if not this is a violation of the PSR. a POOF! theory, they happened without a cause.

B) if they pass from potential to actual in any kind of order, they still require a necesssary being.

C) if they have always been actual, then they are really necessary beings fitting that definition.

this should eliminate an ‘infinite regression of contingent beings’ **

and

**as ive mentioned before a necessary being must exist, because its non-existence entails a logical contradiction.

1. contingent beings exist
2. an existent nothing is a logical contradiction. **

why wont you answer them, or give evidence by posting the answers?

 

[tonyrey]

why do you keep saying things you know are not true, when i can simply post the evidence? its like you think no one will know.

and this is the second time you have made the same false statement.

can you see it the third time i posted it?

now, are you going to stop dodging and jumping threads when your cornered and answer these problems?

**1. an infinite number of contingent beings are no more capable of causing themselves than a single contingent being.

A) if they pass from potential to actual in masse they still require a cause. if not this is a violation of the PSR. a POOF! theory, they happened without a cause.

B) if they pass from potential to actual in any kind of order, they still require a necesssary being.

C) if they have always been actual, then they are really necessary beings fitting that definition.

this should eliminate an ‘infinite regression of contingent beings’ **

and

**as ive mentioned before a necessary being must exist, because its non-existence entails a logical contradiction.

1. contingent beings exist
2. an existent nothing is a logical contradiction. **

why wont you answer them, or give evidence by posting the answers?

`
It’s always the same story!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

`
It’s always the same story!

have you ever seen that movie “dodgeball: a true underdogs story”?

the dodgeball team in the movie has a training motto, that i think is apropo for the situation.

DODGE, DUCK, DIP, DIVE, & DODGE!!

 

[tonyrey]

have you ever seen that movie “dodgeball: a true underdogs story”?

the dodgeball team in the movie has a training motto, that i think is apropo for the situation.

DODGE, DUCK, DIP, DIVE, & DODGE!!

It baffles me why people participate in a philosophical discussion if they are not prepared to answer any relevant question posed to them, regardless of how difficult it is or how compromising their answer may be. If we are genuinely searching for the truth we should be prepared to admit that we don’t know the answer or that we have to modify our views. What’s wrong with that? It’s a sign of courage, humility and wisdom - and far better than trying to bluff your way out. No one is infallible… except the Pope speaking ex cathedra!