33: What's the contingency argument for God's existence?

PintsWithAquinas.com
Get Pints With Aquinas the book! www.amazon.com...
---
The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence - which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.
 
ST 1. Q. 2, A 3.
---
The 13 step argument given by Robert in the interview:
1. We find in reality some things that are capable of existing and not existing, because they are found to be generated and to corrupt.   2. We call such beings possible beings.   3. A possible being cannot be the cause of its own existence.   4. This is so for two reasons: (1) It would already have to exist in order to cause its own existence, but if it already exists then it does not need to cause its own existence, and (2) If it caused its own existence then it would be both prior to itself and also not prior to itself, which is a contradiction and thus impossible.   5. Therefore a possible being must get its existence from a cause that exists external to it.   6. It is impossible that everything which exists is a possible being.   7. The reason is that nothing could have begun to exist in reality if everything were a possible being because a possible being only comes to exist through an already existing cause external to it, which would not exist if everything were a possible being.   8. But if nothing could have begun to exist in reality then nothing would have existed in the past and nothing would exist now, because “from nothing, nothing comes.”   9. But this is absurd because things exist now.   10. Thus not all things are possible beings-at least one necessary being must exist.   11. There are 2 ways for a being to be necessary: (1) it can get its necessity from another; (2) it can get its necessity from itself (per se).   12. If it has its necessity from another, then it requires a cause external to it.   13. An infinity of beings that get their necessity from another would not explain how anything came to exist, just as it is clear from the above that an infinity of possible beings would not explain how anything came to be.   Conclusion: There must be a cause that has of itself (per se) its own necessity (i.e., it does not receive necessity from another), and on which all other beings are, ultimately, dependent for their existence. And this we call God.   ---   Robert mentioned a paper, "There must be a First: Why Thomas Aquinas Rejects Infinite, Essentially Ordered, Causal Series." Read it here: www.tandfonline...

[@michaellilly2550]

I appreciate Robert's argument, and look forward to having him as a professor at Holy Apostles!

[@potterfan392]

I am not sure Robert's step 3 really represents what St. Thomas means in the third way. Robert's third step says that no possible being can be the cause of its own existence. This is correct, but this makes the 13-step argument sound more like the second way, which says that no being in which essence is distinct from existence can cause its existence here and now. I believe the third way rather says that each possible being necessarily did not exist at some point in the past. I am not convinced of this. Just because a being possibly could not exist, that does not mean there must have been a time in the past when it did not exist. Of course, each of us is a possible being that did not exist at one point. However, we could conceive of a possible being that has always existed but could still go out of existence. This being would still depend on a being whose existence is necessary in itself, but we needen't admit that the dependent being did not exist at some point. Maybe I am misunderstanding the third way, but it seems to introduce a time factor that complicates the argument. The second way sufficiently proves the existence of a necessary being without introducing a time factor.

[@taowaycamino4891]

I agree, its impossible for there to be more than one necessary, infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, pure existence, etc... being. If more than one being has less than those attributes then they are not a necessary being. If more than one being has more than those attributes then they are impossible beings and they can't exist. If two or more necessary beings exist with the exact same attributes or identity then how would you distinguish them if they all have the exact same identity and absolutely nothing distinct from "each other"? You can't. By definition you cannot make a distinction where there is none. Therefore only one necessary and infinite being with those attributes can possibly exist. There are more reasons that could be given but I think this is sufficient to put to rest such a claim. Thanks for the show.

[@chosenskeptic5319]

Man is his own self moved mover. If remove God’s will, he cannot move. There is no difference between being simple and non simple.

[@stevebeck312]

All of this cool but Jesus Christ was a Prophet of God and Muslims have the absolute truth.

[@jonathantinnely5107]

Your false prophet used to thigh 6 year old Aisha. What a model of morality. He also rejected that Christ was crucified, which would be a surprise to Jesus Himself, who predicted that He would be crucified and die in all four of the gospels.

[@abbeymaeliam1]

Hahaha

[@williamchami3524]

It's a historical fact that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified. Poor Islam.

[@antezulj4453]

Argument for that?

[@Oatmeal_Mann]

In my opinion, reason can only take us so far. It may be able to tell us that God exists, but exactly which religious tradition represents His revelation to mankind ; may be impossible to determine using reason. If Allah is the "best of deceivers" and all the evidence for Jesus' crucifixion is illusory, then we'll never be able to tell which religion is true out of the two using reason.