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

[@michaellilly2550]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.