1. Any contingent fact about the world must have an explanation.
2. It is a contingent fact that there are contingent things.
3. The fact that there are contingent things must have an explanation. (1,2)
4. The fact that there are contingent things can’t be explained by any contingent things.
5. The fact that there are contingent things must be explained by something whose existence is not contingent. (3,4)
C. There is a necessary being. (5)
>C. There is a necessary being. (5)
No
There is a necessary "something" not necessarily a being
4 and 5 are leaps of faith
Go away.
That's an arbitrary point.
You can call it a "thing," a "being," a "variable," a "factor," an "entity," etc. It doesn't matter what you call it. The fact of the matter is that that necessary non-contingent thing, whatever you choose to call it, is unlike any other thing in the cosmos.
You may as well stop trying to be a special little snow-flake and just call that thing "God" like the rest of the world.
Okay, then you're calling potentially some arbitrary, abstract, state of being which necessarily gives rise to universes, a "being"
It's not an arbitrary point - you're trying to anthropomorphize it to support your theistic viewpoint when really there is no reason to believe in that
Also you're ascribing causal logic to a "before" the Big Bang, and the Big Bang created time so
>2. It is a contingent fact that there are contingent things.
This is unjustified. It's only contingent if you assume the fundamental properties of the universe were chosen some way. So this is begging the question. It is far simpler to assume that the fundamental properties of the universe are necessary, rather than assuming a necessary being to choose them.
>The fact of the matter is that that necessary non-contingent thing, whatever you choose to call it, is unlike any other thing in the cosmos.
The cosmos is unlike anything in the cosmos.
wtf I believe in God now
Why is 4 true?
Because then the contingent explanation would explain itself, so it wouldn't be contingent. The flaw is in 2.
>being "necessary" is all that's required to make something a god
Funny how the definition of God can be a million different things depending on whatever "proof" christfags want to present, but they all somehow equate to a sky dad even though they don't.
Lets say for the sake of argument that premises 4 and 5 don't have glaring flaws:
Congrats, deism is valid but not demonstrated to be sound. Deism is the cosmological equivalent to saying if something is possible it is necessary or in any way correct.
You haven't gained an inch towards heaven, gods being/having a mind, hell, objective morality, free will, omniscience/omnipotence being valid, or literally any other tenant of any theist platform.
6. That necessary being is nature/physical reality
Christcucks btfo
atheists btfo by vaguness of language and changing definitions.
XD
1. Any contingent fact about the world must have an explanation.
Why?
Philosophers are brainlets.
>Liebniz
>a brainlet
It's an assumption
Because if he said there must be a mover or a cause we'd have all seen it a million times and know he was full of it.
Instead he uses vague language that sounds slightly different from other not quite logical theist arguments, but it's really the same thing.
Leibniz was also an accomplished polymath with many contributions to other fields. Modern academic """""""philosophers"""""""" are insecure brainlets.b
1. Is false, how do you something can be explained or understood by mankind, i.e. How do you know reality has to make sense?
I mean I hope it to be true. I hope that we are capable of understanding our universe, but that's just hope :^)
Why? Would be much better for reality to make no sense whatsoever. As is the case with any puzzle, once you figure it all out, it's boring.
Well at least the god of the bible explicitly states that we will never figure out the nature of reality because it is not possible for men.
Me personally, I'm thinking of reality as a hexagon prism 4D fixed spacetime lately (see pic related). Past and future is all fixed, but we can choose if we want to experience the bluish - good - paths, or the reddish - red- paths, depending on our actions or inactions. Its a fairly common view and most likely wrong, but i like it.
I normally hate ontological proofs but this one actually btfo young me. Somehow I never realized before that the universe is the effect of some cause we know not, which we would call God.
Are you playing semantics or arguing that something that does not exist, or is not a being, can have an effect? My opinion is that the number 0 symbolizes what is not being, and that 0 adds nothing and transforms anything it is multiplied by also to 0 -- thus having no effect
1) >implying
2) ok
3) >implying
4) >implying
5) ok
C) lol
Basically a fancy way of saying : "Something can't come out of nothing, except god "
Not even an atheist but literally the premise is wrong.
>1. Any contingent fact about the world must have an explanation.
No
>2. It is a contingent fact that there are contingent things.
That's a paradox
>Somehow I never realized before that the universe is the effect of some cause
It's not, the universe is necessary.
I'm an atheist but your criticism is wrong.
>1. Any contingent fact about the world must have an explanation.
This is self-evident by the definition of contingency. Contingent facts are dependent on something else, which is their explanation.
>2. It is a contingent fact that there are contingent things.
>That's a paradox
It's not a paradox, but it is unjustified and the key controversy in the argument. It is just saying that a necessary cause explains the fact that there are contingent things. This is not paradoxical, but it can be countered with the assumption that the fact that there are contingent things is necessary, i.e. the properties of the universe which determine everything in it are necessary/fundamental/noncontingent.