addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramlinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

Singapore Philosophy Group Message Board › Contingent existence Vs Necessary existence (For Tim Bunn)

Contingent existence Vs Necessary existence (For Tim Bunn)

Hayden H.
user 66121452
Singapore, SG
Post #: 4
A distinction between a God that either “exist necessarily” or “exist contingently ,” in my opinion is a dichotomy which is unjustifiable. For it to be justified, we have to input a few assumptions.

Lets say God existence is assumed.
Lets say God is semantically defined as an uncaused cause
Lets say God is singular

1) Being Is (B is) = The principle of Existence.

2) Being Is Being (B is B) = The principle of Identity.

3) Being Is not Nonbeing (B is Not Non B) = The P. of Noncontradiction.

4) Either Being or Nonbeing (Either B or non B) = The Excluded Middle.

5) Nonbeing Cannot Cause Being (Non-B>B) The Principle of Causality.

6) Contingent Being Can't Cause Contingent Being (Bc>Bc) Dependency.

7) Only Necessary Being Can Cause a Contingent Being (Bn->Bc) = The Positive Principle of Modality.

8) Necessary Being Cannot Cause a Necessary Being (Bn>Bn) = The Negative Principle of Modality.

9) Every Contingent Being is Caused by a Necessary Being (Bn->Bc) = The Principle of Existential Causality.

10) Necessary Being exists = Existential Necessity (Bn exists).

11) Contingent being exists = Existential Contingency. (Bc exists).

12) The Necessary Being is similar to the similar contingent being it causes = The Principle of Analogy (Bn-similar->Bc)

REVIEW: 1) I am here, 2) I am me, 3) I really exist, 4) I am not you, 5) I was caused, 6) I couldn't cause myself, 7) something is greater than me, 8) there is only one original, 9) everything was caused, 10) there is a first cause, 11) the first cause exists, 12) I'm similar to what caused me.

These First Principles above help us logically evaluate God and ourselves.

Hence follows:

I know that I exist. I am here. (Numbers are coded to Logic above. #1)

I didn't make myself. (#11)

Nothing cannot cause something. (#5)

Only something prior to me could bring me here. (#7)

Therefore, I was caused to exist by something other than me (#1-4)

I am a rational, emotional and person.

Therefore, the one prior to me must also be rational, emotional since we are similar (#12)

The Necessary Being is essential and can't be unnecessary (#3)

Therefore, a Necessary Being exists.

A contingent being could not cause a contingent being (#6)

If God is semantically defined as an uncaused cause

Then it concludes that God is a necessary being.

Wonder if anyone has any views on this.

Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy