Argument from Possibility and Necessity

31 posts / 0 new
Last post
Chris McDearman's picture
Argument from Possibility and Necessity

1. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.

2. Assume that every being is a contingent being.

3. For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.

4. Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.

5. Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.

6. Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.

7. Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.

8. We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.

9. Therefore not every being is a contingent being.

10. Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Again number 7, and this time
Chris McDearman's picture
So how would the contingent
Nyarlathotep's picture
That is just the problem. You
Chris McDearman's picture
No. You're confusing terms. I
Nyarlathotep's picture
Uhh, your reference to 6 and
Chris McDearman's picture
I haven't used the term
mykcob4's picture
The OP is flawed because it
Chris McDearman's picture
Why do you make a point of
mykcob4's picture
@ Radical
Chris McDearman's picture
I don't have a predetermined
mykcob4's picture
@Radical
Chris McDearman's picture
Why would I submit a
mykcob4's picture
@Radical
Chris McDearman's picture
1. We know contingent beings
mykcob4's picture
You refuse to PROVE ANYTHING!
MCDennis's picture
Cool. So what caused your
Chris McDearman's picture
You're making the same
algebe's picture
@RW
Chris McDearman's picture
I would say Aquinas was
algebe's picture
RW: "I would say Aquinas was
Chris McDearman's picture
In my ontology, the original
algebe's picture
"the original ax lost its
Chris McDearman's picture
Essence is the ontology of a
algebe's picture
"Essence is the ontology of a
Dave Matson's picture
RadicalWhiggery:
Chris McDearman's picture
Would you be interested in
algebe's picture
@RW: "Would you be interested
Chris McDearman's picture
We do calls pretty much daily
Dave Matson's picture
RadicalWhiggery:
algebe's picture
Good point Greensnake. When

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.