What Is the Real Argument from Contingency?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tannhauser_1509
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tannhauser_1509

Guest
It is claimed by Thomists that understanding the essence of a thing does not entail that one can know the existence of any particular being having that essence. However, this argument makes sense to me only if the agents concerned exercise free will. In the case of a lion, however—which I will assume is acting deterministically—it would seem to me that having a perfect scientific knowledge of the world would, in theory, enable one to predict the existence of a particular being having the essence of a lion. So could not all beings therefore be considered “necessary beings”?

Or, is the lion only “necessary” on the assumption that physical laws remain constant but could conceivably be suspended?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top