Well the contingency argument seems sound. Now some of you might object what if the universe exists necessarily? Well not many atheists have been to eager to endorse this idea. Now when I say necessary I mean that the universe the way it is has to be this way there is no other way it could be. But I think we can grasp the universe contingency. With the rise of modern science we know that the planets and start etc, have been created some 4 billions years or so by some external cause. No one would seriously would endorse the idea that a planet is a necessary being. But the entire universe is composed of atom which are composed of quarks. Now to say that the universe exists out of necessity of it's own nature is to say that a quark is necessary. Now no one thinks the quarks has some special property that makes it necessary. The universe does not exist out of necessity of it's nature. Because we can envision that in some possible world a universe composed of different quarks can give arise to a universe. Now is that universe the same or different. It's different because it is composed of different quarks. Most scientist would agree that the universe doesn't have to be this way that it could have been different.
No there is one more way to escape the argument. Now some will object okay the universe might not exist necessarily but nonetheless something must exist! It is impossible that nothing exist. Since the universe is that something it does not need a explanation. Well this objection seems absurd. Now note this reasoning let's just agree with this for the moment. Something must exist. Well let's say that nothing exists and that it is impossible for anything but a unicorn to exist. And since something must exist it entails that a unicorn must exist. This strikes me as absurd.
Tomorrow I will discuss the ontological argument for the existence of God.
No comments:
Post a Comment