argument from contingency is very easy to refute?

J

John M

New member
argument from contingency is very easy and simple to refute , the syllogism for the argument reads as follows:

1. everything that exists has an explanation of its existence(either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause).

2.If the universe has an explanation of its existence,that explanation is god.

3.The universe exists .

4. The universe has an explanation for its existence .

5.Therefore the explanation of the universe's existence is god.

Simply put the argument falls apart at premise two , as its a bare assertion fallacy ,since it is not logically supported by the antecedent premise. The substantiation christians try to give me for premise two is completely invalid since they appear unable to support premise two logically , scientifically or empirically .
 
god created everything in this universe , including minds that ignore gods existence

if someone thinks everything is a result of some reaction please tell me this ,why does your lung for example let only oxygen to your body ?
whoever decided that only that gas is good for you ?
and .. even if it is good for you how come that your lung knows it ? it doesn't have its own mind does it ?
oh , i think i hear someone saying .. it was made that way ..
made ? means there is a .. maker ?

what about your heart .. why is it working without power ?
why does it stop suddenly ?
sometimes when still a baby , and sometimes when you are 100 years old ?


addition :
some people here just thumb down my post , come one guys , you are suppose to be people who think with their minds , why don't you enlighten the delusional religious me and answer my questions ?
is that a ( i don't know but i just don't like it ) kind of answer ?
if you don't know then .. i think that you should .. think again

addition 2
more thumbs down , that's really funny and i am starting to enjoy it , so you guys are asking us to use our minds while you refuse to use yours ?
i rest my case
 
the jump from universe having a beginning to the universe being created by a thing is a ridiculous jump.

Seeing as how we have yet to decide what the universe was before planks time. the common misconception regarding the big bang theory is that we started from nothing, there is no consensus on what the universe started as.

So to claim the universe must be created is a leap of its own, that would imply that at one point there was nothing. Then to jump to a being or a thing creating it is ridiculous.
 
Well, yes, because it's an utterly fallacious argument. The only difficulty is identifying which fallacy it's committing!

Premise 2 is unsupported except by the desired conclusion, which makes it begging the question. But there's also a bit of a mid-sentence redefinition going on -- it begins by calling whatever caused the universe to exist "God", then redefines "God" to be a particular anthropomorphic mythological character.
 
You have premise 2 and 3 the wrong way round but the argument is still flawed by (new) 3 AND 4. The Universe does NOT have an explanation for its existence. Even if it did and you accept all the above all it is saying is God is a name for whatever brought the universe into existence so god is probably a series of fluctuations in a gravitational field at the quantum level not a self aware actor with purpose
 
Back
Top