Atheist and satanic literature to be distributed in Delta County schools
95 replies, posted
[QUOTE=sgman91;50022839]There are two types of things: contingent and necessary. A contingent thing is something that could logically not exist. So, for example, the cup that I'm drinking out of can logically not exist. It's existence is contingent on other, outside, factors. A necessary thing exists by it's very nature. It must logically exist. Many mathematicians believe, for example, that numbers are necessary. Even if the universe were drastically different numbers would still be the same. 2+2 would always equal 4, even if everything else were to be different. God is also a necessary being. If it is possible for God to exist, then he must exist.
The argument is that all physical things within the universe are contingent and that it's reasonable to believe that the universe itself is also contingent. This would lead to the question, "Why does this contingent universe exist as opposed to not existing?" It requires an explanation for it's existence. This would mean that some non-physical necessary being or thing must have existed prior to all contingent things as an explanation for those things.
The historical argument has been that this necessary thing is God. Like I've said previously, people like Krauss argue that quantum fields and laws are the necessary thing instead.[/QUOTE]
You're adding an extra step to justify the existence of a god. Why is it logical to believe that the universe is contingent? There is no existence outside of The Universe, so it must logically exist, because without it the concept of existence or non existence no longer makes sense . The Universe is necessary,and therefore requires no outside force to exist .
I don't have an issue with the questions about the origins of the universe, but i am definitely a naturalist in the sense that i believe that there is a physical explanation for everything and that is the only way we can figure out the answers. If it can't be explained then it is because of a lack of evidence or intelligent reasoning. I think its silly to assume that there is a god or something that created the universe that somehow defies the laws of physics and then to try to justify the idea with logic. I don't consider myself an atheist because i have no interest in theism and i think it is irrelevant to our understanding of the universe and the science that forwards our understanding of it.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;50026057]For the first part, the reason you're not hearing arguments for it is because people who believe in it "don't give a shit" (your words) and don't feel the need.
For the second part, that's a very long winded way of wording 'Atheist'.[/QUOTE]
I guess, since apatheism and atheism are in the same tree, but I also haven't seen anybody arguing metaphysical nihilism. I'd love to see someone try to justify that one.
[editline]29th March 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=IrishBandit;50026942]You're adding an extra step to justify the existence of a god. Why is it logical to believe that the universe is contingent? There is no existence outside of The Universe, so it must logically exist, because without it the concept of existence or non existence no longer makes sense . The Universe is necessary,and therefore requires no outside force to exist .[/QUOTE]
Well, we [i]could[/i] get into stating that nothing has any requirement to exist since existence isn't necessary in the first place, but then we get into a rather weird bit of nihilism. What does that fall into? Is that metaphysical nihilism?
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;50026988][B]I don't consider myself an atheist[/B] because i have no interest in theism and i think it is irrelevant to our understanding of the universe and the science that forwards our understanding of it.[/QUOTE]
Why go to such lengths to try and explain away a perfectly fine position? If you don't believe in a god, you're a de facto atheist.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.