http://atheology.com/2007/06/09/contingency-and-necessity/ n. against God or gods, anti-theology, the defense of naturalism Sat, 28 Apr 2012 13:38:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://atheology.com/2007/06/09/contingency-and-necessity/comment-page-1/#comment-2112 Matthew Weatherford Mon, 12 Dec 2011 05:08:13 +0000 http://atheology.com/2007/06/09/contingency-and-necessity/#comment-2112 I liked how you argued, but I think you missed something. Contingency is not dependence or relation; it only means that something could or could not exist. We say God is necessary, not because we are playing a stupid word game, but because if God were contingent then he wouldn't be infinite. He doesn't need to create himself in order to have created everything else. He doesn't need to be contingent in order to relate to us, because his essence is to exist. Infinite series does not refer to chronology, but to rather to the importance of the cause. Just think about it. . .if everything were contingent then how could we end up where we are from an infinite series. Contingency broke the necessity chain, not vice versa hahaha. Read some Aquinas. You have your terms totally confused lol. I liked how you argued, but I think you missed something. Contingency is not dependence or relation; it only means that something could or could not exist. We say God is necessary, not because we are playing a stupid word game, but because if God were contingent then he wouldn’t be infinite. He doesn’t need to create himself in order to have created everything else. He doesn’t need to be contingent in order to relate to us, because his essence is to exist. Infinite series does not refer to chronology, but to rather to the importance of the cause. Just think about it. . .if everything were contingent then how could we end up where we are from an infinite series. Contingency broke the necessity chain, not vice versa hahaha. Read some Aquinas. You have your terms totally confused lol.

]]> http://atheology.com/2007/06/09/contingency-and-necessity/comment-page-1/#comment-809 Colin Wed, 05 Jan 2011 12:22:57 +0000 http://atheology.com/2007/06/09/contingency-and-necessity/#comment-809 Lol'd Lol’d

]]> http://atheology.com/2007/06/09/contingency-and-necessity/comment-page-1/#comment-398 Atheology » Cosmological Arguments Fri, 25 Jun 2010 01:05:56 +0000 http://atheology.com/2007/06/09/contingency-and-necessity/#comment-398 [...] Specifically, theologians traditionally define God as a “necessary” being and define the physical world as “contingent” instead of “necessary.” As I say, this is mere special pleading. But even if we accept it, the argument fails because if God is not a contingent sort of being then God can’t be a cause for contingent things—causality, in short, is a two-way street. Causes must be the sort of thing that can bring about what they cause. I have written about this in discussions of the cosmological argument elsewhere. [...] [...] Specifically, theologians traditionally define God as a “necessary” being and define the physical world as “contingent” instead of “necessary.” As I say, this is mere special pleading. But even if we accept it, the argument fails because if God is not a contingent sort of being then God can’t be a cause for contingent things—causality, in short, is a two-way street. Causes must be the sort of thing that can bring about what they cause. I have written about this in discussions of the cosmological argument elsewhere. [...]

]]> http://atheology.com/2007/06/09/contingency-and-necessity/comment-page-1/#comment-268 Alexwebmaster Tue, 03 Mar 2009 12:41:05 +0000 http://atheology.com/2007/06/09/contingency-and-necessity/#comment-268 Hello webmaster I would like to share with you a link to your site write me here preonrelt@mail.ru Hello webmaster
I would like to share with you a link to your site
write me here preonrelt@mail.ru

]]>