November
Thursday 26 March 2009 photo 1/1
![Lan i helgen!
Annars håller jag på och läser om detta: RIKTIGT INTRESSANT!
The argument from contingency
In the scholastic era, it was unknown whether the Universe had a beginning or whether it had always existed. To account for both possibilities, Aquinas formulated the "argument from contingency", following Aristotle in claiming that there must be something to explain why the Universe exists. Since the Universe could, under different circumstances, conceivably not exist (contingency), its existence must have a cause - not merely another contingent thing, but something that exists by necessity (something that must exist in order for anything else to exist).[6] In other words, even if the Universe has always existed, it still owes its existence to an Uncaused Cause,[7] although Aquinas used the words "...and this we understand to be God."[8]
Aquinas's argument from contingency is distinct from a first cause argument, since it assumes the possibility of a Universe that has no beginning in time. It is, rather, a form of argument from universal causation. Aquinas observed that, in nature, there were things with contingent existences. Since it is possible for such things not to exist, there must be some time at which these things did not in fact exist. Thus, according to Aquinas, there must have been a time when nothing existed. If this is so, there would exist nothing that could bring anything into existence. Contingent beings, therefore, are insufficient to account for the existence of contingent beings: there must exist a necessary being whose non-existence is an impossibility, and from which the existence of all contingent beings is derived.
The German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz made a similar argument with his principle of sufficient reason in 1714. "There can be found no fact that is true or existent, or any true proposition," he wrote, "without there being a sufficient reason for its being so and not otherwise, although we cannot know these reasons in most cases." He formulated the cosmological argument succinctly: "Why is there something rather than nothing? The sufficient reason [...] is found in a substance which [...] is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself."[9]
Aristotelian philosopher Mortimer J. Adler devised a refined argument from contingency in his book How to Think About God:
The existence of an effect requiring the concurrent existence and action of an efficient cause implies the existence and action of that cause.
The Cosmos as a whole exists.
The existence of the Cosmos as a whole is radically contingent (meaning that it needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence to preserve it in being, and prevent it from being annihilated, or reduced to nothing).
If the Cosmos needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence, then that cause must be a supernatural being, supernatural in its action, and one the existence of which is uncaused, in other words, the Supreme Being, or God.](http://cdn08.dayviews.com/43/_u3/_u2/_u5/_u4/_u7/u325477/20337_1238022675/Lan_i_helgen_Annars_haller_jag_pa_och_laser_om_detta_RIKTIGT_INTRESSANT_The_argument_from.jpg)
|
Lan i helgen!
Annars håller jag på och läser om detta: RIKTIGT INTRESSANT!
The argument from contingency
In the scholastic era, it was unknown whether the Universe had a beginning or whether it had always existed. To account for both possibilities, Aquinas formulated the "argument from contingency", following Aristotle in claiming that there must be something to explain why the Universe exists. Since the Universe could, under different circumstances, conceivably not exist (contingency), its existence must have a cause - not merely another contingent thing, but something that exists by necessity (something that must exist in order for anything else to exist).[6] In other words, even if the Universe has always existed, it still owes its existence to an Uncaused Cause,[7] although Aquinas used the words "...and this we understand to be God."[8]
Aquinas's argument from contingency is distinct from a first cause argument, since it assumes the possibility of a Universe that has no beginning in time. It is, rather, a form of argument from universal causation. Aquinas observed that, in nature, there were things with contingent existences. Since it is possible for such things not to exist, there must be some time at which these things did not in fact exist. Thus, according to Aquinas, there must have been a time when nothing existed. If this is so, there would exist nothing that could bring anything into existence. Contingent beings, therefore, are insufficient to account for the existence of contingent beings: there must exist a necessary being whose non-existence is an impossibility, and from which the existence of all contingent beings is derived.
The German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz made a similar argument with his principle of sufficient reason in 1714. "There can be found no fact that is true or existent, or any true proposition," he wrote, "without there being a sufficient reason for its being so and not otherwise, although we cannot know these reasons in most cases." He formulated the cosmological argument succinctly: "Why is there something rather than nothing? The sufficient reason [...] is found in a substance which [...] is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself."[9]
Aristotelian philosopher Mortimer J. Adler devised a refined argument from contingency in his book How to Think About God:
- The existence of an effect requiring the concurrent existence and action of an efficient cause implies the existence and action of that cause.
- The Cosmos as a whole exists.
- The existence of the Cosmos as a whole is radically contingent (meaning that it needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence to preserve it in being, and prevent it from being annihilated, or reduced to nothing).
- If the Cosmos needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence, then that cause must be a supernatural being, supernatural in its action, and one the existence of which is uncaused, in other words, the Supreme Being, or God.
Comment the photo
<br />
Kanske inte en grundmening, men nu finns det en.<br />
<br />
Att spela Empire Total War är en del av den.
<br />
Men det är fortfarande ett intressant argument.<br />
Fast argumentet antar att det inte kan finnas en oändlighet, vilket jag inte gillar.
11 comments on this photo
Directlink:
http://dayviews.com/svennisen/347445712/
Visa toppen
Show footer