Leibniz’ Contingency Argument

For more resources visit: www.reasonablefaith.org/Leibni...
View the Kalam Cosmological Argument animation video: • The Kalam Cosmological...
View the Fine Tuning Argument animation video:
• Video
View the Moral Argument animation video:
• The Moral Argument
Reasonable Faith features the work of philosopher and theologian Dr. William Lane Craig and aims to provide in the public arena an intelligent, articulate, and uncompromising yet gracious Christian perspective on the most important issues concerning the truth of the Christian faith today, such as:
-the existence of God
-the meaning of life
-the objectivity of truth
-the foundation of moral values
-the creation of the universe
-intelligent design
-the reliability of the Gospels
-the uniqueness of Jesus
-the historicity of Jesus' resurrection
-the challenge of religious pluralism
We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:
www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/
Be sure to also visit Reasonable Faith's other channel which contains full-length clips: / reasonablefaithorg
Follow Reasonable Faith on Twitter: / rfupdates
Like Reasonable Faith on Facebook: / reasonablefaithorg
Leibniz' Contingency Argument Script:
We live in an amazing universe.
Have you ever wondered why it exists?
Why does anything at all exist?
Gottfried Leibniz wrote, “The first question which should rightly be asked is: Why is there something rather than nothing?”
He came to the conclusion that the explanation is found in God.
But is this reasonable?
P1: Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence.
P2: If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
P3: The universe exists.
From these it follows logically that the explanation of the universe’s existence is God.
The logic of this argument is air tight. If the 3 premises are true, the conclusion is unavoidable. But are they more plausibly true than false?
The third premise is undeniable for anyone seeking truth. But what about the first premise?
Why not say, “The universe is just there, and that’s all”? …No explanation needed! End of discussion!

[@PioneeringPhilosophy]

My favourite philosopher of current era WLC ❤

[@travie_Trav]

I'm taking a class at Liberty Online and we are reading your book "On Gaurd". These videos really help me to understand the concepts better! Thank you

[@marthasharrock5406]

thanks so much! A level exam in three days, this really helped 👍

[@ellajohnson4650]

This video is a masterpiece

[@AT-mu6ov]

It’s not, it’s plenty of fallacies. The argument can be used to prove the existence of everything and anything. I could use this argument to prove the existence of Zeus and you wouldn’t accept it

[@multienergy3684]

@@AT-mu6ov Zeus is the God of thunder, exists inside space and time and guess what? Space time and thunder are contingent things!

[@AT-mu6ov]

@@multienergy3684 Ok then, my God named Fjyrddsryh. He is the God of everything, limitless, not bounded by time and space and independent. Disprove this God

[@multienergy3684]

@@AT-mu6ov This sound suspiciously like the abrahimic God. Is changing a perfectly pronouncable name to a stupid name sufficient for mocking a deity?

[@AT-mu6ov]

@@multienergy3684 You really think the Abrahamic God is the only God that the believers define as independent and beyond space time ? Give me a break

[@josephpostma1787]

I like Inspiring Philosophy's introduction to this cosmological argument.

[@roddydykes7053]

This video explains in 5 mins what my prof would take two or three lectures to

[@sound.of.science]

That is because your prof would address the many flaws of this argument.

[@rtreno]

@@sound.of.science Which are?

[@sound.of.science]

@@rtreno It already starts in the first 9 seconds: "Have you ever wondered why it (the universe) exists?". That question assumes some kind of purpose to the universe before proving it. The question should not be "Why does the unverse exist"? But rather: "Is there evidence to suggeste that there is a reason or purpose behind the existence of the universe?" Only if that can be proven to be the case, we can assess what those reasons might be. So the 'why' question only makes sense if we first prove the existence of some kind of entity that created the universe and had some kind of purpose with that.

[@robertalexandrucherdivara2987]

@@sound.of.science the why doesnt refer to the reason, the way you ask 'why do i get scared when i wet the bed?' . its lime saying that the why in 'why do things fall to the ground' needs a purpose

[@sound.of.science]

@@robertalexandrucherdivara2987 In that case, the answer to the question is: the universe exists because a singularity experienced a rapid expansion.

[@williamjason1583]

Very well made

[@paultrosclair1775]

Or as God introduced Himself to Moses, "I Am".

[@richardfredlund3802]

another way of looking at it is that any logical argument requires a first premise. And so there is necessarily a first step (which by it's nature cannot follow from logic but precedes it).

[@Jetsjohnny]

So what precedes god? Awfully convenient how your god contradicts the premises you hold for everything else. 😂

[@zeyadbobakra5983]

​@@Jetsjohnny your dumb if god had something before him he is no longer necessary and thus contingent

[@NoN0-eb8lj]

​@@JetsjohnnyYou are beyond irrational.

[@dimithetree]

@@Jetsjohnny every ARGUMENT does, not every PREMISE.

[@solideogloria5553]

scientists : we are interested only in examining things that don't examine us. who wants to be judged?

[@lynnmcintosh]

So good. Thank you

[@brycew2]

Nicely done

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

God is really amazing

[@solideogloria5553]

well done!

[@studyingbadger]

I’m not a christian but I think the way he perceives life and his trust towards it is worth learning and applying to my life. It reminds me of a saying, “A blessing in disguise.”

[@cdc3]

This difference between the necessary being and the contingent being is nice summed up in the Name God gives Himself: "I am ". He is because He is. There is no other reason that He exists. He is the Necessary Being. I on the other hand cannot say that. I have a mother and a father from whom I am derived. Both with sequential generational being through my lineage back to Adam and spiritual re-generational being I have in Christ, I am derivative, a "contingent" being who may only say "I am because He is". There must be a Cause without cause for the explanation on being for everything BUT that First Cause. Otherwise you face an infinite regression of meaningless causation which really says nothing more than "it just is". The "buck" either has a stopping place or trying to explain the buck is without any rational meaning...

[@weyo7928]

This is really, really, really well said.

[@isaacm4159]

This is basically my argument for why it's reasonable to believe in God, if there isn't then you run into the problem of infinite regress. There must be an absolute complete first and final cause.

[@isaacm4159]

Only I think that the universe itself is god, but whether God is the universe or separate it seems an absolute first principle is necessary.

[@LindeeLove]

The list of entities is fairly short? How do you know that? Could the list hold things that you are not aware of that are not intuitive?

[@ChainGangShow]

Great Video Dr. Craig ! , Can I use this video and translate the Audio into a different Language

[@drcraigvideos]

We would be happy to discuss this! Please email our Director of Translations at [e-mail]. - RF Admin

[@SinanKorkmaz91]

This video is simply fascinating. I was here to learn something that confused me. And not only I learned it but started to wonder how did you make this beautiful presentation. Which program did you use etc... Lovely, thanks a lot.

[@drcraigvideos]

The video was made with Adobe After Effects. Glad you like it! - RF Admin

[@t.d.2016]

Open comments yay!

[@sethluster7553]

This is a cool video 🎉

[@nsayyed5469]

thanx to ibn sinna

[@ChrisMusante]

How do I go about 'publishing' MY ''Theodicy'. I have resolved the question, can vindicate the Lord for 'creating' it [evil], and actually show via scripture why it is actually 'good' that there 'is' evil.

[@luisd918]

Tight logic. Logic points to God

[@alexgonzo5508]

Not really.

[@ontologicalvagueness]

@@alexgonzo5508 cut the crap , it’s necessary fact

[@alexgonzo5508]

@@ontologicalvagueness God is not a necessary fact, unless you define God not as a Being but as some kind of force or energy then yes, but not otherwise. You don't need a "person" or "being" to start the universe. The problem is not if there is a God or not, the problem is in how we individually define what God is.

[@hydrocarbon13]

@@alexgonzo5508 This necesarry existance created design and great things, It has to be something independant with will. I call that God

[@jquest99]

@@hydrocarbon13 The problem is this "necessary thing" that has the label God has no direct connection to a Christian or any other God. There's no proof that this Necessary Being conveyed the story of creation to man or that it sent Jesus or Mohammad or is the father of Hercules or Thor. Premise 2 simply introduces God as a termination point for a series of causes. The basic argument is that if this thing exists, something caused it, and something caused that, and something caused that, etc until you give up and say, OK, there must be something that started everything. We have NO idea what that thing is that started everything, so let's just call it God.

[@user-ig2kn8em3p]

Existence is the only thing we know, non existence is what should be questioned

[@kizu5451]

can you please make more philosophical videos for Gods existence

[@pepperachu]

May God bless your seeking🙏

[@weyo7928]

Yeaahhhh that would be great,

[@michaelramos3536]

​@pepperachu which god?

[@saraelajeb]

​@@michaelramos3536what do you mean which God? 😂

[@Frames_debates]

​@@saraelajebThere are thousands of gods within our knowledge. To assume there would only be one would be an illogical fallacy, If a God or Gods even exists in the first place.

[@kaleemazad5475]

Hi. I would like to know why or how the PSR (principle sufficient Reason ) is true. Why do ALL contingent existence need and explanation. This is the only part of the argument I Don't understand.

[@jonnelacecodog3490]

Question: Which God causes the universe to exists?

[@larrywilliams5490]

Anyone who is honest and truthful will agree. It amazes me the extreme aberration that so called atheists will go to so God can be ignored or dismissed.

[@Priestbokmei1]

Can statements 3 & 4 be reversed? Would the argument change?

[@Priestbokmei1]

Error, I meant to write: Can statements 2 & 3 be reversed? Would the argument change?

[@jdlc903]

2:15 thst point just occurred to me

[@papercurrencyisascam3015]

This was explained earlier by Avicenna. Ah the Western scholars should give credits to him.

[@justapedophetwithoutamustache]

Prove it.

[@papercurrencyisascam3015]

@@justapedophetwithoutamustache If you want you can search it on Google. I am not interested in proving it to you.

[@Autobotmatt428]

@@papercurrencyisascam3015 And it was explained early than that by Aristotle before Avicenna

[@notmyfirstlanguage]

@@Autobotmatt428 I don't think that's quite true. As I understand it, Aristotle's argument was a version of the cosmological argument, whereas Avicenna's argument was completely unique until his time, and is perhaps more related to set theory than to causality.

[@Autobotmatt428]

@@notmyfirstlanguage You maybe right I looked it up. Though it seems PaperCurrency was making it seem that Ibn Sina was the founder of this type of argument.

[@soulofcinder6709]

So as an agnostic I would love to have some thing cleared up for me, at 1:20 were given a great explanation on why people have ALWAYS questioned our existence and universe. But that same example is then used for God, only given an option of God did it with out providing really any other ideas or options is just like saying "it is, so don't question it." I've gotten a few comments about this, im not atheist guys. Im agnostic. Please leave atheism out of this, thank you.

[@kenandzafic3948]

Actually no, it seems to me that you have taken God as a brute fact. This is something atheists often use to avoid an argument, but the problem is that the raw facts violate the first premise, which is more than reasonable. What the argument requires is a necessary being that is metaphysically necessary, we don't know what makes that being metaphysically necessary but it is obvious that it must exist because there is a universe. Reasons are given why that being must be God, I personally prefer something that I haven't seen Craig use in this argument which is the fact that all finite things are contingent facts and therefore the necessary being must be God.

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

​@kenandzafic3948 very interesting.

[@EthanBarganier]

Well that's because nothing else but God would be able to do such a thing i.e. god is the best word we have to explain what the creator and sustainer of the world is. it's the reason at the end they say if you don't like the term God, you can call it "the extremely powerful, uncaused, necessarily existing, non-contingent, non-physical, immaterial, eternal being who created the universe and everything in" which is what we mean when we say God. he's not some bearded dude in the sky nor is his equivalence the Flying Spaghetti Monster, he is the fundament of reality.

[@ericjr8695]

@@kenandzafic3948actually to your claim that we don’t what makes that being necessary, I would say that the existence of the universe makes that being necessary. We know the universe is finite, if it’s finite it certainly came to be. It could not have created it self because that would imply that it existed before it came to be, which we know is absolutely absurd and illogical. So it must have been created or cause by something else. That is God, who is infinite and has always been, capable of tuning it to sustain life and order with uniformity and laws of nature so that it operates properly. So in the context of our argument, we can argue that the existence of the universe, makes God necessary

[@infosite999]

But the interesting thing is, atheists always ask for proof of God, but they can't disprove him either

[@farhansakib8154]

Outstanding!!

[@jerardosc9534]

Why no comments???

[@drcraigvideos]

We only opened them for the animated videos a few days ago. Welcome! - RF Admin

[@Autobotmatt428]

@@drcraigvideos I understand. Back when you guys first posted the video any topic related to God or arguments for God would get flooded with Dislikes and atheist trolls.

[@Autobotmatt428]

@@drcraigvideos thank you for making this video and introducing me to Leibniz and for show that it is reasonable to believe in God.

[@roddydykes7053]

Secular world

[@Autobotmatt428]

@@drcraigvideos I think you have some trolls on this video and the ontological argument video.

[@danielhumphrey3836]

If the universe is time, and without the universe there is no time, then there is no time for the universe to not exist

[@drcraigvideos]

That's not quite right. Time is a metaphysical reality, so it could exist without the universe. For example, if God decided to count the natural numbers one after another, this would be sufficient for a temporal sequence without the universe. But, yes, in the absence of any events whatsoever, there would be no time, which is why Dr. Craig has always maintained that God is timeless without creation. - RF Admin

[@lewis72]

@@drcraigvideos I think that you're pretending that you know what time is and what it isn't, just in order to support the "god exists" argument. Furthermore, there's no explanation as to how something supposedly non-physical can create/influence something physical, so you're picking and choosing which phenomena to adhere to and which to reject also in order to support your "god exists" argument.

[@drcraigvideos]

@@lewis72 This is just the old, warmed-over interaction problem. The Kalam Cosmological Argument deductively demonstrates that the non-physical can produce physical effects, so the onus is on the objector to produce a non-question-begging argument that such interaction is somehow impossible. - RF Admin

[@lewis72]

@@drcraigvideos Utter rubbish. Explain how the KCA deductively shows that something non-physical can create/influence something physical.

[@wolfotero7261]

I don´t see it

[@kizu5451]

what makes this different from the kalam cosmological

[@kylejacobson9587]

The Kalam is built around time. Contingency is time-independent

[@zakirnaikahmaddeedat3651]

One of Allah's names is As-Shomad, which means the necessary being.

[@jonnelacecodog3490]

Question: Which God causes the universe to exists? Yahweh, Zeus, Odin, Horus, Thor, Anu, Ahura Mazda, Vishnu, Buddha, Allah, Belzeebub, etc? Please answer my question.

[@kylejacobson9587]

This argument is usually a starting point which is built upon. If you want, Thomas Aquinas goes into depth on why the necessarily existent God is the Christian God In short, it is a logical necessity that such entity would be outside the universe, all-powerful, perfect, all-knowing, ontologically simple, among other traits. Augustine, which is reiterated by Aquinas, makes a strong argument that God's self relation necessitates the Trinity, thus making it the Christian God. If we put that aside the God of Islam and Rabbinical Judaism are also logically possible. The gods of the pagan religions are not

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

sovereign God substantive choice organizing people of world.

[@MNSTRShams]

Im muslim but Lane Craig has really Good arguments

[@Autobotmatt428]

He's really good at explaining them for the lay person.

[@waliahmedkhokar8943]

You should study burhan contingency argument and the founder of the argument was ibn Sina read Muhammad hijab book on burhan contingency argument.

[@Catmonks7]

👍

[@omanjabbar200]

Sexy explanation. Subbed.

[@yf1177]

Even if the LCA succeeds, the 'necessary being' could be the universe itself. The proposition that 'nothing exists' is logically incoherent. So something HAS to exist, necessarily.

[@drcraigvideos]

The universe had a beginning. A necessary being doesn't begin to exist. - RF Admin

[@yf1177]

@@drcraigvideos No, the big bang does not necessarily indicate that the universe had a beginning. While the big bang theory describes the early expansion of the universe from a hot, dense state, it does not imply that this state was the absolute beginning of time and space. The big bang may not necessarily be the beginning of all existence. There could have been a universe (or an infinite number of universes) that came prior to ours, making our universe just one phase in the cycle of universes.

[@kylejacobson9587]

Has the universe undergone change?

[@e.omonarchy8506]

Isn't the answer "universe just is" an ad hoc fallacy? I mean if you accept it as an epistemic justification then shouldn't you also accept "God just is"?

[@sarahshaw7315]

What if we … don’t exist? What if you believe we exist?

[@isaibipat1457]

How did he slip the word BEING in there? All those things makes sense, but suddenly they use the word "BEING" strange. you could say something, that would be more thoughtfull

[@surendrathapa1861]

I accept that the universe was created by a necessary being, unfathomably powerful and non-physical but why is it necessary that he is benevolent?

[@robertalexandrucherdivara2987]

its not. the argument is for a god, not the christian god in particular. the problems arises at the facts that this 'God' wanted the universe to be created , so the question which naturally arises is why? Leibniz argues that existance is the best thing there is, and a loving God creates infinitely. On the other hand, Schopenhauer argues that existance is pointless and for the intellect a burden, and that if theres a God he must be cruel. Its a little more complicated but its up to you to decide

[@bible1st]

@@robertalexandrucherdivara2987 So here is the answer, So perhaps you can figure it out from here: Revelation 14:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

[@kylejacobson9587]

Aquinas goes into detail. An overly short version of his argument starts with the fact that such God could not have parts. If so, only the part which was necessarily existent would initially exist, and any subsequent part would be created, and thus distinct from God Thus all aspects of God must at their core be of one essence, and be one thing that we humans have made formal distinctions between. Thus, because existence is good, Goodness must be part of God's essence

[@peterrobinherbert]

Can you have a necessary explanation for a contingent fact? A contingent fact is one that could have been otherwise. So take a fact that could be A or it could be not-A. If it is A then the explanation would account for why it is A and not-A. But if the fact is not-A then the explanation would have to account for why it is not-A rather than A. In other words the explanation would have to be different if the fact is. So you can't have a necessary explanation for a contingent fact.

[@kylejacobson9587]

This does not follow. You are making the cause dependent on the effect

[@peterrobinherbert]

@@kylejacobson9587 No, obviously I am not. For a start the word they use is "explanation". If you have an identical explanation for two disparate events then clearly the reason for the disparity has not been explained.

[@Night_Wood]

“Checkmate Athiests” -Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, 1714

[@robinmattias]

True, but it's also check mate christians, muslims and jews. The Universe of the Monadology of Leibniz needs no creator because it is eternal. Mathematics needs and has no creator.

[@A.rahman_1219]

@@robinmattias the contingency argument still applies to an eternal universe.

[@robinmattias]

Before all you christians, jews and muslims start clapping your hands, "God" is always a question of definition. Leibniz, contrary to popular belief, does not refer to a creator God, but to an eternal, mathematical God, or a "singularity" outside space and time. See his Monadology.

[@kylejacobson9587]

Which, if you read your Christian and Muslim philosophers is compatible with the Christian and Muslim God. Leibniz himself thought so

[@tellmewhenitsover]

Not sure that it follows that God would be a being, that God would have a personhood.

[@CalebStroman]

Logically there must be nothing, unless there's an eternal entity capable of cause.

[@robinmattias]

That eternal entity capable of cause is the "God Singularity" which is composed of an infinite amount of immaterial and indestructible monads located outside space and time. This infinite collective of monads underlie and are responsible for the creation of the objective material Universe of space and time. The goal of all these monads is to attain consciousness, and then God consciousness. When all monads are fully conscious they are collectively God. The Universe then reboots itself and a new cosmic age begins where the infinite amount of monads again seek to become conscious and recreate God together. This mathematical Universe of ours does this for eternity. This is the perfect system and it needs no creator.

[@ARmohammed1445]

There is a designer who designed the perfection that exists today, a designer who everything depends upon him and depends upon nothing, that is being almighty Allah subahanu wata'ala....

[@Rafayhailerrr]

Yeah, pure science there mate!

[@Autobotmatt428]

God goes by many names.

[@ARmohammed1445]

@@ruaraidh74 Allah subahanu wata'ala said in the Glorious quran chapter 41 verse 53 We will show them our signs in the horizons and with in them selfs until it becomes manifest to them that it is the truth....

[@maur_sault750]

😂😂😂

[@assmcclappins]

Mashallah brother

[@yendorelrae5476]

Spinoza's God maybe

[@Frames_debates]

This is a great argument, but one of the biggest flaws is assuming that the universe was caused. Why does the universe need or not need to be contingent For this argument.

[@RoenComic28]

That would make the universe the necessary being (God)

[@kylejacobson9587]

Because the universe has undergone change, and logically a necessary entity cannot change

[@LindeeLove]

"God" is a lot more shiny than some ball. What is its explanation. If "God" is a necessity, then why does that necessity exist?

[@johnstfleur3987]

" Hello, William Lane Craig, Most Humbly speaking I am the Messiah, I will support YOU financially."(GOD)

[@antoniomoyal]

The contingency argument is reallly St. Thomas Aquinas second way to prove the existence of God. Some 5 centuries earlier than leibnitz

[@drcraigvideos]

The two are actually distinct. The Leibnizian version pertains to "explanations" of existence, whereas Thomas' second way pertains to "causes." Note that the first premise of the Leibnizian version asserts that "Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence." This includes God. The explanation of God's existence is that he exists of a necessity of his own nature. By contrast, Thomas' argument merely concludes to a first cause and excludes the first cause from itself being caused. So, while they are similar, they are also different in a very important way. - RF Admin

[@antoniomoyal]

@@drcraigvideos i understand, but still, a "cause" for St Thomas is the "why" of the existence of something. Following Aristotle, he poses the formal cause the why of being what something is. Like to say that I have thoughts because i am human. God being uncaused is to say he has no efficient cause. It isvprecisely st Thomas who differentiates existence (external) from essence (internal).

[@kirkp_nextguitar]

The claims of the first two premises are unsupported. The claim that the universe must be contingent is unsupported. Nice try though.

[@razagamerofficial1859]

What a dork you are universe is not infinite and it didn't exist before to sustain itself and contingent things can be in some other. Ways like universe may exist in some other way that's why it is contingent

[@squeaksp3324]

aren’t you going to explain how?

[@Saltatory_]

Agreed. Also merely stating that the argument is undeniable doesn't make it so. I deny it! See!

[@kirkp_nextguitar]

@@squeaksp3324 The claims that the universe (or more generally, the cosmos) is contingent, must have been created by a non-contingent being, and that such a contingent being must have the qualities of the Judeo-Christian God are unjustifiable. One cannot reason one’s way to the existence of a god without evidence.

[@kylejacobson9587]

Can we agree that the universe has undergone change?

[@gze7953]

Why can't universe itself be explained by itself

[@drcraigvideos]

Because the universe has properties which are inconsistent with a necessarily existing being. For example, it had an absolute beginning in the finite past. Something which has in itself the sufficient conditions for its own explanation can't have a beginning to its existence, since things which begin to exist have causes outside of themselves, and self-causation is impossible. - RF Admin

[@NovaDopa]

OK... and who or what created god?

[@cris-goat95]

Nothing

[@ArnabDas-ro5gz]

What or who created the number 7? Answer: The question is invalid. The number 7 is necessarily existing and it can't fail to exist. Necessary beings don't require an explanation for their existence.

[@JessicaChristlight]

For anything to exist you need energy, if you claim world was always there - where do you get energy to sustain this world? If you claim there is nothing beyond material universe - where do you find such amount of energy in this universe to sustain? You have a fundamental issue, you could have got away with this in the past but today you scientifically know you cannot account for such energy existing in the physical observable universe...

[@kylejacobson9587]

Where does your assumption that it requires energy come from?

[@JessicaChristlight]

@@kylejacobson9587 That is reality of Life.

[@kylejacobson9587]

@@JessicaChristlight That's not an answer, unless you have a radically different definition of energy

[@JessicaChristlight]

@@kylejacobson9587 then you are free to go my beloved 🤭

[@izumiosana]

What's the evidence that our universe "contingently" existed rather than "necessarily" existed? What's the problem with considering Cosmic Inflation the most advanced scientific theory about the origin of the Universe as a Prime Cause (God) of everything?

[@kylejacobson9587]

Because a necessary entity cannot change, and the universe has changed

[@zardoz7900]

I'm mel.....ting

[@weyo7928]

random :^

[@weyo7928]

random :^

[@markvis4106]

too bad the word "GOD" is not contingent, but necessary.... so what's the real word? is it bird? i wanna know O_O

[@FrancisMetal]

why did he put "God" into the list of the necessary causes? Isn't it a begging question?

[@drcraigvideos]

No, it's not question begging. It's simply defining our terms. Our concept of God is of a being which exists necessarily, so any being which is contingent is not possibly God. - RF Admin

[@dannydewario1550]

​@@drcraigvideos How do you know that the being that created our universe is necessary and not contingent? Isn't it possible that the being responsible for our universe was created by another being (and that being is the truly necessary one)? In other words, it's a little arbitrary to assign necessity to the creator of our universe. He could also be a contingent being.

[@alexgonzo5508]

@@drcraigvideos Why does it have to be a being? You need to define being.

[@drcraigvideos]

@@alexgonzo5508 Here, "being" means "something that exists." Something which does not exist cannot be the explanation for the existence of anything else, clearly. - RF Admin

[@MrEpic6996]

@@dannydewario1550 well that doesn't matter the one that created our universe would be fake god suppose 5 d thing/entity, but at the end of this chain the one that creates has to be eternal entity/thing

[@Saa42808]

Basically the contingency argument provides a blueprint of God by which one can construct the true “Image” of God and only Allah (Muslims’ God) fits into that image like a glove and the remains fall short. In the end he simply described the definition of Allah as mentioned in the Quran.

[@valurimist9861]

Well yeah, its an argument for theism, not Christianity or Islam.

[@kylejacobson9587]

It fits both Christianity and Islam equally well. Give Augustine's argument that such entity's self-relation necessitates Trinitarianism, you could argue it fits Christianity better

[@imnotabird1118]

I disagree

[@solideogloria5553]

we see order in our beautiful universe, therefore, somebody smarter than us ordered it. this doesn't work for people with messy rooms, they might need some Jordan Peterson first.

[@robinmattias]

We see order in the Universe because the eternal mathematical laws that underlie the Universe are laws of order, not because "somebody smarter than us" ordered it. If this "smarter" being you're talking about created the Universe, what created him? And what did this being do for an eternity before deciding to create this Universe of ours and us?

[@solideogloria5553]

@@robinmattias great q my dear friend. the only "being" by definition is before time, transcends space time, therefore independent of time, his dictionary doesn't need "time" if he so chose. we who are asking this type of questions (understanably so, since we are bound within the space time cosmos, i asked the same q before) are really "becomings". we can potentially use your same argument to question the existance of Laws of nature. but luckily the argument is not valid. and we have both the laws as (don't forget the objective moral laws that is your conscience as well if you happens to be a consistant individual) well as the Law giver being prior to the big bang, with the Law giver preceding the laws since laws are by definition regulations that do not have volition. just like your neat lines of codes in a computer program that were there for a certain purpose of regulating the logic of your application. the lines of code itself only funtion as logic and constraints, they don't create, event the smartest AI can only recreate with the help of human input. origin of information and purpose were the biggest questions that we should be asking, in both life and life supporting laws of nature.

[@solideogloria5553]

@@robinmattias since i have not really entered eternity before , i don't really know what this being was/is/will/(you see ,grammar seems to only work for space-time cosmos sentances) doing, but the question itself sure was a great help to me in undertanding my own heavily space-time influenced way of thinking. thank you again for asking. keep seeking the truth.

[@flambr]

everything in the universe exists contingently, so the universe exists contingently faaaaaaalacyofcomposition every part of a car is light and easy to carry, therefore a car is light and easy to carry

[@Virtues162]

Do not attempt to do that as you will break your back! Carrying end explaining do not go hand in hand!

[@zachio69]

The Leibniz's Contingency Argument has faced numerous criticisms, including the following: The principle of sufficient reason: The argument is based on the principle of sufficient reason, which states that everything that exists must have a reason or explanation for its existence. Some philosophers argue that this principle is not universally true and that some things may exist without a sufficient explanation or reason. The necessity of God's existence: The argument concludes that the explanation for the existence of the universe is God, who is a necessary being whose existence is explained by the necessity of its own nature. However, some philosophers argue that God's existence is not necessarily necessary and that there could be other explanations for the existence of the universe. The identification of God as the explanation: The argument concludes that the explanation for the existence of the universe is God, but this conclusion has been challenged by some philosophers, who argue that there could be other explanations for the existence of the universe, such as a multiverse or a natural cause. The concept of causality: The argument assumes that everything that exists must have a cause, but some philosophers argue that this assumption is not necessarily true and that there could be uncaused things in the universe. The empirical evidence: The argument is a philosophical one and does not rely on empirical evidence, but some critics argue that philosophical arguments for the existence of God are not enough and that empirical evidence is necessary to support such claims. In conclusion, the Leibniz's Contingency Argument has faced numerous criticisms and objections, and its validity as a proof for the existence of God is still the subject of ongoing philosophical debate and discussion.

[@kenandzafic3948]

1.The key word is assert, feel free to justify that claim because once you accept it you will face serious problems, you can't explain why things don't happen now without explanation and even worse you can't explain the huge success of science which strongly accepts the first premise and in the end you are aware that you can claim anything if you think it is possible for something to happen or exist without explanation. 2.It is a pointless question which necessary explanation explains God, it is simply contradictory because necessary entities by definition do not have an external cause, and which entity do you propose to replace God, besides the universe I only know about abstract objects and God. 3.The multiverse belongs to the universe because this definition of the universe is broader and refers to all physical substance in space and time, and this includes the multiverse and anything natural. So in terms of explaining why natural things are contingent facts, here are a couple of reasons: 1) Strong intuition that the universe could be different, denial of such a powerful intuition requires strong evidence. 2) Quantum mechanics which confirms that the universe is probabilistic and not deterministic 3) The beginning of the universe 4) Limitation of the universe 4.The argument does not say that everything that exists must have an explanation and not a cause, and you cannot deny the concept of causality as I have already confirmed. Empiricism is self-defeating because if empirical evidence is the only way to truth what empirical evidence do we have for that claim, good luck. Also, in order for atheists to justify that non-empirical arguments do not work, they must either challenge the logic, which will lead them to trivialism, or show which premise is incorrect.

[@zachio69]

@@kenandzafic3948 I agree explanations are important, but what is it that is not being explained?

[@kenandzafic3948]

@@zachio69 Everything is explained and God has an explanation in the necessity of his nature.

[@zachio69]

@@kenandzafic3948 I guess you got it all figured out there genius.

[@kenandzafic3948]

@@zachio69 A great way to end the discussion.

[@Ahmad-ps4hn]

Subhanallah. This doesn't entail Christianity or any other religion though. That is another leap in logic

[@TylerMatthewHarris]

A higher dimension requires the existence of a lower dimension. By this logic it’s “turtles all the way down” and there would be an infinite set of gods

[@Rafayhailerrr]

The contigency argument is inarguably a very respectable one, especially the way you illustrated it but this video kick-started it's bizarre parade of dishonesty when it stated that the possible causes of the universe is fairly short, and reducing it to nothing more than 2 options. 1 God 2 Abstract entities This is very petty and a result very much expected pattern of intentional dishonesty expressed by religious apologetics of all sorts and it still baffles me. By definition, abstract is simply something of which it's provable existence is nothing more than imaginative. The main point of this simply is, if it's not percieved with any of our physical senses, measurable and it's existence can't be physically proven by any means, it's simply abstract. You may fancy the word "spiritual" for your fancy ditties, but that in itself is still abstract (like Zeus or most of the Gods you probably believe are man-made). By this definition, it's already clearer than crystal that God and abstract entities are "NOT" different things. God or gods, simply all fall under the category of abstract. It was a really petty move to impose your apologetic views in defense of your own diety in what was already a very honest educational video. Your emotions are abstract, not because they don't exist, but because they can't be proven to be anything physically measurable. This could have even made a case for your diety beyond anything other than just a dishonest imposition if you simply acknowledged it's abstract and maybe used the excuse that "since emotions are abstract and it doesn't mean they don't exist, therefore God is the same". But no! you didn't, you simply separated them and in a bizarrely deductionistic way (if there's a word like that) kicked "abstract objects" away. This might sound very cliché to you already but what you have simply done in this video, is just another pathetic example of God of the gaps theory. Once again, the contingency argument is not an argument that proves "ANY" religion or any God to be real or true (even though thay was what Leibniz was trying to do). What it simply does is explain why saying definitely that there is "NO" source of all matter and existence is simply not correct (at least by our current limits of understanding). This Source, or Necessary cause or being as you may call it, can be in fact any thing at all, or things in fact! The possibilities are simply endless. You can't compare your description of God to the existence of Mathematics as the latter does not possess any animated characteristics and is simply a constant that exists as a results of anything simply existing. Your God on the other hand (Which I presume to be the Christain God based on your video being about leibniz who was a protestant christain. Correct me if I'm wrong) is not only conscious, but speaks, not only speaks, he remained silent for more than 100,000 years of human existence before speaking to some dessert dwelling tribe about everything that exists (which have been proven to be mostly false and fascinatingly ridiculous). Not only that, he created a moral code, wrote an entire bible for you to live by, will reward a few people that belive in him with eternal life and purnish those that don't with eternal damnation. I mean, the universe has being in existence for 13.8+billion years and an average human will leave 70 or 80 years. 13.8 billion years is simply a blip of a blipped blip in eternity and yet your God will decide the eternal fate of a human over not even that, but merely 70-80 years of existence. Looks so all loving to me lol. So your conclusion wasn't simply, well, the entire universe has a cause or an infinite number of causes which for the time being we may label "God" at least till we figure it out, but it is "Your God" that can, has and will do all the things I've mentioned above. That my friend is just another elaborate "God of the Gaps" theory and a dishonest conclusion to what was a very beautiful explanation of a philosophical argument.

[@drcraigvideos]

There are several misunderstandings here. First, your description of abstract objects demonstrates a lack of familiarity with the way philosophers understand the term. They are not a stand-in for anything which cannot be perceived with the physical senses. Rather, they are timeless, spaceless, immaterial entities which are causally impotent. Note the difference between, for instance, the number 2 (an abstract object) and God (a concrete object). The former has no causal power; the latter does. Yet neither can be perceived with the physical senses. For more on the distinction, see Dr. Craig's article "God and Abstract Objects": www.reasonablefaith.org/images/uploads/God_and_Abstract_Objects_%282%29.pdf. For a much more detailed treatment, check out his book God Over All. Second, the argument deductively concludes only to a generic monotheism and not specifically the Christian God. Dr. Craig has always noted that the argument shouldn't be pressed for anything more than generic monotheism. Finally, the argument operates on the atheist assumption that if the universe has no explanation, then atheism is true. This seems plausible. The logical equivalence is that if the universe does have an explanation, then atheism is false and theism is true. You're welcome to posit a different non-theistic explanation of the universe, but then you're claiming something found to be less plausible than what is affirmed by most theists and atheists. As for a "God of the Gaps," this is just incorrect. This is a deductive argument, so the existence of God simply follows necessarily from the putative truth of the premises. It's not based on ignorance, but rather on what we have good reason to believe is true. The atheist may disagree with the conclusion, but then he needs to show which of the premises is false. - RF Admin

[@Rafayhailerrr]

@@drcraigvideos Thanks a lot for clarifying the misunderstandings. I will go through your material and give a response soon enough. Thanks a lot.

[@ismailkassim3866]

If someone murder a person under a minute, do you think it is reasonable for them to be punished for under a minute? It is the about how long the person was alive (70-80 as you said) but the nature of the crime.

[@GuldurKhand]

You make some smart points, but you also make some an assumption on something that is really hard to get information from. Christians generally believe the earth is around 6000 years old. The 100,000 years of human existance you talk about is based on scientific measurements. The farther you go down in history, the harder it is to accurately measure time that has passed. The scientific aging measurements are obviously very accurate if you want to measure something that is 10 years old, also pretty accurate for 2000 years old, but the older a thing is, the less accurate the measurement is going to be, because of lack of information. It is like getting information from watching a tower in the distance versus getting information from watching a tower from close by, the farther you are away from something, the less information you have about it, and the less accurate that information generally is. The 6000 years is scientifically much more accurate if you believe in the bible, because of the known genealogy written in the bible and good description of years between generations, if I would believe the bible to be incorrect, I would also assume 100,000 years, but since I believe in the bible, 6000 years is more accurate scientificly speaking. The case about lacking information could also be said about God's punishment, you assume that eternal punishment is extremely bad, and you are right, God doesn't want you to get the same punishments as he will give satan and the fallen angels, but no one really knows what this punishment really means, except for the people who allready died, for God or for the devil and his fallen angels. What we know that hell is a life without God, we know what eternity means, we know what torture is, but we don't know what hell truly is, eternal torture sounds quite devastating, but we know that God is a righteous God, God is not unjust, so don't worry about it being an unjust punishment. We know that God has given us enough information to be saved. Actually it is as easier to be saved for a dumb/poor man as than it is for a smart/rich man, which is quite just actually.

[@GuldurKhand]

@@drcraigvideos "Finally, the argument operates on the atheist assumption that if the universe has no explanation, then atheism is true." Laws like energy, matter, movement are all spawned into existance with the Big Bang. After that the explanation starts. But what about the law that spawns the laws into existance. And what about the law that spawns the law that spawns laws into existance. Etc. No explanation is a flawed assumption, because it stops thinking.

[@peterheggs512]

I understand the argument, but it doesn't make any sense and boils down to "if god created the universe then god created the universe". If the universe was created by god, who created god then? I get it, god is claimed to be "necessarily" existing, so why not simplify that and think the universe is necessarily existing instead of created at all? This argument just uses specifically chosen premises in order to get the desired answer.

[@drcraigvideos]

Well, given that there doesn't seem to be any good reason to think the universe is necessarily existing, and very good reason to reject that claim, the rational position seems to be to accept the universe's contingency. This is especially so considering the evidence for the absolute beginning of the universe, for it seems obviously true that whatever begins to exist has an external explanation for its existence. Since the argument is logically valid, one cannot simply dismiss it by saying that the premises are "chosen to get the desired answer." The one who wants to reject the conclusion must reject one of the premises. So, which premise do you reject? - RF Admin

[@peterheggs512]

@@drcraigvideos Thanks for your reply, it's interesting to read other perspectives! With all respect, I disagree though for so many reasons; "it seems obviously true that whatever begins to exist has an external explanation for its existence" - I don't know why you would conclude that applies to the universe. Also, there is no evidence that the universe as a whole began to exist, there are many (IMO more plausible) scientific papers hypothesizing otherwise. We only know that the space within the universe expands at the moment and has been expanding for a while. I mostly doubt premises 1 and 2, and don't see any reason why that would be the case. e.g. one of the issues I have with premise 1, "Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence" - if you claim god exists, this would apply to god as well.

[@drcraigvideos]

@@peterheggs512 It seems arbitrary to accept the causal principle for everything in the universe and then to simply dismiss it when it comes to the universe because of its theological implications. Dr. Craig has called this the "Taxicab Fallacy," where one just dismisses the principle like a cab once he's arrived at his desired destination. As for evidence for the beginning of the universe, there are actually at least four lines of argumentation. First, there are two independent philosophical arguments: 1) the argument against an actually infinite number of things, and 2) the argument against forming an actual infinite via successive addition. Second, there are two scientific argument: 1) the expansion of the universe, and 2) thermodynamics. Obviously, the first two arguments, being philosophical arguments, are immune to scientific defeaters. And the two scientific arguments enjoy the support of the best scientific evidence. As atheist cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin noted, all of the evidence points to an absolute beginning of the universe. Finally, Dr. Craig affirms that God has an explanation of his existence. As he notes in his books Reasonable Faith and On Guard, there are two explanations for something's existence: 1) an external cause, or 2) a necessity of a thing's nature. Obviously, the explanation for God's existence would be a necessity of his own nature. So, far from undermining the argument, the charge that God must have an explanation for his existence serves as an opportunity to clarify the alternatives for explaining something's existence. - RF Admin

[@peterheggs512]

@@drcraigvideos I'd be happy to change my mind but I don't find your arguments convincing yet. e.g. "It seems arbitrary to accept the causal principle for everything in the universe and then to simply dismiss it when it comes to the universe" - I don't dismiss it at all, even if I am not sure whether it applies, and frankly it seems arbitrary to me to dismiss it when it comes to a god. If you think about causality in relation to the universe there are an infinite possible scenarios, just to list a few: 1) "A" causes the universe, and "A" just exists. I believe that's where you are. However, "A" does not have to be a god and I don't understand why you would think so. 2) "A" causes the universe and the universe causes "A". If you claim the universe has a cause, and that we should not dismiss the causality, something like this is where you should be. A cyclic arrangement is the only way to achieve that. Again, "A" does not have to be a god and could be anything. 3) The universe just exists. This is my personal favorite. and about your philosophical infinity argument; if there is a god that necessarily exists as you say, that god would have temporal infinity. You can't use those arguments for one but not the other thing.

[@littlefishbigmountain]

@@peterheggs512 To address your three scenarios: 3) 1:08 - 4:00 This addresses premise 1 2) How can the cause of the universe be caused by the universe? 1) 4:01 - 5:08 This addresses premise 2 As for “temporal infinity”, time isn’t a collection of physical things that needs to add up to a literal infinity of things. Besides, that assumes time to be a necessary thing anyways and the whole premise is that time is a part of the universe so the cause of that universe cannot be contingent on its existence. You started off this discussion by saying you understand the argument, but the objections you raised are the exact ones being addressed in the video with no distinguishing features so as to make the video need any adjustments to address your objections in any way differently, so I am left to wonder whether you really do understand the argument as presented in the video.

[@theMosen]

At the end of the day, you're saying the same thing about god that Russell said about the universe. "God is JUST THERE, and that's all." NO explanation needed. END OF DISCUSSION. Because that's what it means to exist non-contingently. Spacetime set the stage for all instances of contingency that we've ever come across and as a concept it is clearly ontologically distinct from the things within it. If you're so adverse to the idea of infinite regression that you desperately need there to be a non-contingent entity to serve as a precondition for contingency, spacetime itself is the perfect candidate. No need to make stuff up outside of it, by definition there is no outside of it. And there was never any requirement for such an entity to have any of the anthropomorphic traits associated with "god" (sentience, intelligence, intentionality, goodness etc) in the first place.

[@BobTrikob-pr2ts]

God explains himslef the universe cant explain itself it relies on its parts for its existance and therefore needs an explanation outside

[@theMosen]

@@BobTrikob-pr2ts Dude, the moment you believe that anything "explains itself" is the moment you've committed a circular reasoning fallacy.

[@MrJamesdryable]

So many holes in this argument. I hope this isn't an accurate representation of his ideas.

[@robinmattias]

There is no mention of the Monadology at all. I guess the creator of this video is a christian/jew/muslim.

[@pasafauzan7026]

even if such being exist, there is no need to personalized such being. It doesn't have to be "the ""extremely powerful"" uncaused, necessarily existing, non-contingent, non-physical, immaterial, eternal being ""who created"" the entire universe... it may also: The uncaused, necessarily existing, non-contingent, non-physical, immaterial, eternal being ""that caused"" the entire universe So it doesn't prove god. It just prove that kind of being. Whatever it is. May be god, yeah, maybe. But not proved.

[@binswaidblack6847]

Sprongle

[@melosh8303]

It seems like your justification for the first premise is the watchmaker argument: but this is defied by the fact that the universe is mostly empty, with very little in it compared to the amount of boring nothingness. The stars are also arranged in no meaningful way. It seems more like it wasn't guided. Your justification for the second premise is non-sensical - how do you know this to be the case? Even if your terrible arguments are true, they tell us nothing about the nature of god; you've simply defined god to be a synonym for the universe. There's no reason to believe a two thousand year old book somehow got it right, even from this argument.

[@stephaniegormley9982]

Still doesn't explain the existence of any SPECIFIC God.

[@drcraigvideos]

Right, this argument merely eliminates atheism. Dr. Craig uses Christian evidences such as the resurrection of Jesus to show that it is specifically the Christian God which exists. - RF Admin

[@LindeeLove]

If our universe does have an explanation for its formation, why can't that explanation be something that is non-intuitive and not a god?

[@creamysauce7966]

Redefine "God"

[@LindeeLove]

@@creamysauce7966 So we can have a definition for "God" that may be unconscious?

[@peterrobinherbert]

If the contingency argument were sound, all it would say is that there is at least one thing that is necessarily the way it is. Somehow this video picks up all these other things like "all powerful" and "immaterial" (without defining what materiality is). In other words it is absurd to suppose that this is an argument for the existence of God, whether it is sound or not.

[@kylejacobson9587]

These are attributes that logically follow from an entity that exists by virtue of its essence. Aquinas does a good job demonstrating it

[@peterrobinherbert]

@@kylejacobson9587 Aquinas doesn't even give a good account of what "existing by virtue of its essence means". And in any case that is an entirely different argument.

[@FullMoongrn]

Leibniz must have taken his idea's from Islamic philosophers. The idea of a contingent and necessity being can be found in Islamic literature more than thousand years ago. Like avicenna for example. He explained the necessity of God in great details and why everything else is contingent. Islamic scholars are inspired by the Qur'an wherein God says: "Or were they created by nothing, or are they ˹their own˺ creators?" (52: 35) This vers tells clearly that something cannot come from nothing. Second: contingent beings are not creators.

[@zverh]

The verse commits the fallacy of false dichotomy. Something does not have to come from nothing, nor is there any need for a "necessary being". Cosmological and contingency arguments are bunk and based on linguistic confusions and fallacious reasoning.

[@kenandzafic3948]

@@zverh Then show which premise of the argument is wrong and explain why it is wrong.

[@TheDizzbozz]

Das argument ist ein Zirkelschluss - Leibnitz führt ein klassichen Ontologische/Kosmologisches Argument an, was die existenz eines Gottes als Gurndannahme (Prämise) ansetzt and dann darauf hin führt das dieser dann auch existieren muss... (sei es Kontigenz oder " Vorstellung", als rein Menschzentrierte Kreislogik) bzw. in seiner kosmologischne for ein klassiesc argumentum ad ignorantiam

[@weathforjr]

Because of course everything came from a Bronze Age Cannanite war deity...!

[@AT-mu6ov]

1. Every bank robbery has a robber 2. If the bank was robbed, the robber is a BLACK MAN 3. The bank was robbed 4. Therefore, the robber is black See how the logic is faulty ? Premise 2 assumes that the conclusion is true.

[@joshd3502]

Are black men the only ones capable of robbing inside the created universe? Difference is what else can make a universe but such a being? Also way to be racist.

[@AT-mu6ov]

0:54 is a textbook example of begging the question or assuming the conclusion

[@Tobi_237]

Well I disagree. So let’s hear your refutation then, prove that the 3 premises are UNTRUE and irrational, and thus why they don’t support the conclusion. And feel free to substitute the word God with Creator/Designer if that offends your supposed atheism.

[@AT-mu6ov]

@@Tobi_237 You dont know what begging the questions is. The premises can be true and STILL beg the question, making the conclusion invalid. And why the hell are you assuming I’m an atheist, can I not be an honest believer who calls out fallacies when I see them ?

[@AT-mu6ov]

@@Tobi_237 You replace the word God with Superman and I’ll tell you how it’s true and rational

[@AT-mu6ov]

@@Tobi_237 do you not see how the argument is circular ? God exists because the universe exists. The universe exists because God exists. God exists because the universe exists. The universe exists because God exists. To infinity and beyond. FALLACIOUS LOL

[@Tobi_237]

@@AT-mu6ov . In any logical argument, if the premises are true then the conclusion MUST follow logically, so I’m a little confused when you say a conclusion can still be ‘invalid’ even IF the premises are true, that’s not how logic works. Second of all, yes I made a blind assumption that you might be an atheist, but it was nothing MORE than an assumption and I was simply providing ample room for you to feel free to make substitutions however you see fit.

[@esteban5663]

This is nonsense! The second premise is fallacious reasoning! You're already assuming god exists, which is supposedly the conclusion of the argument. It's begging the question. You still have ZERO evidence for the existence of your magical invisible friend.

[@jeffcokenour3459]

Bacon exists necessarily. Taxes are a contingent phenomenon that sadly won't go away.

[@dudead2729]

Idk yet why the universe exists period. No other logical position in my opinion.

[@rafaelazo75]

I’ve read Leibniz’s ACTUAL contingency argument, and I gotta say, this video butchered it.

[@kylefox2397]

Would you mind enlightening us to the mistakes?

[@Jetsjohnny]

“All matter and energy” okay please explain Dark matter and if you can’t; you can no possibly say god is “necessary” because you’re ignorant to its properties. Also if you’re ignorant about literally anything how can posit that “god is” when you have gaps in your knowledge! Stop assuming

[@A.rahman_1219]

Dark matter is contingent.

[@Homo_sAPEien]

If these things proved God, then they wouldn’t be referred to as “arguments.” When something is a scientific fact, do they refer to the evidence for it as “arguments”? No, they don’t because it’s actually proven.

[@robinmattias]

Forgive me if I have misunderstood you... But neccessary philosophical truths do not need to be empirically studied and proven to be true. The thought that "The Universe exists" does not need any external scientific validation - it just is what it is. "God" is always a question of definition. Leibniz, contrary to popular belief, does not refer to a creator God, but to an eternal, mathematical God, or a "singularity" outside space and time that has always existed and that can never be created or destroyed. He also says that there is an infinite amount of these singularities and he called them "monads". See his Monadology.

[@Homo_sAPEien]

@@robinmattias The universe exists? Which universe? And what is a “universe”?

[@delgande]

Not everything is scientific. You mean empirical and that does not apply to everything. Logical truths are not empirical, not scientific. The contingency argument is a logical conclusion given the premises that one can question but if you agree to them then it is a "proof". To be fair it does take for granted empirical reality and assumes the unobserved universe is the same as the observed in its contingency etc

[@Homo_sAPEien]

@@delgande One cannot logically prove that something exists.

[@A.rahman_1219]

@Homo_sAPEien pour some boiling water on your hand and tell me that pain doesn't exist. This kinda hyper skepticism is a cop out.

[@michaeleldredge4279]

By premise (1) if God exists then there is an explanation for His existence. Most monotheistic conceptions of God posit that God is uncaused, and therefore simply exists without explanation. Either premise (1) fails or the conception of God as uncaused fails. Either way, this argument does nothing to prove Christianity.

[@drcraigvideos]

That would be to confuse "cause" and "explanation." Note that having an explanation is not identical with having a cause. In fact, God does have an explanation of his existence, namely that he exists due to the necessity of his own nature. Therefore, God is not excepted from the first premise, but neither does his having an explanation for his existence entail that he is caused. - RF Admin

[@michaeleldredge4279]

@@drcraigvideos Interesting. So there is a class of entities that can exist due to the necessity of its own nature, no other explanation required. Is there some reason that the universe itself cannot fall into that category, and exist without the need of an extremally powerful, uncaused, non-physical, immaterial being that created the universe and everything in it to be the explanation?

[@drcraigvideos]

@@michaeleldredge4279 Anything that is self-existent exists necessarily and cannot fail to exist. The universe, being finite in the past, has not always existed and therefore does not exist necessarily, which entails that it is not self-existent. To suggest that the universe is self-existent is to deny the causal principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause. But the denial of the principle is absurd, since the alternative is things popping into existence uncaused from nothing or else being self-created. Self-creation is impossible because it implies that the thing already exists in order to create itself. Popping into existence uncaused from nothing not only goes against our uniform experience of causation, but it also makes it inexplicable why things aren't coming into existence uncaused all the time. So, given these issues, the explanation for the universe's existence would seem to lie in an external cause. When we analyze what it means to be the external cause of the universe, we find the properties you list. - RF Admin

[@michaeleldredge4279]

@@drcraigvideos Thanks for the response. I used imprecise language earlier, and for that I apologize. Our universe is the observable physical material realm that "began" with the big bang a finite period of time ago. The word Cosmos refers to everything including anything outside the universe. Suppose for the sake of argument the universe came about through mindless natural processes within the Cosmos. If this is the case, then by the definitions used in the video God is a collection of mindless natural processes that doesn't fit with the Christian conception of God or God is not the cause of the universe. If someone can show that my hypothetical is impossible in some way, that can save the argument of the video. Otherwise, I don't see a consistent definition of terms that allows the argument to hold up to scrutiny.