{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Objections to the Contingency Argumen1

Objections to the Contingency Argumen1 - Objections to the...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Objections to the Contingency Argument A. The notion of a necessary fact (or a necessary existence) is incoherent (Hume, Kant). Hume: anything we can imagine existing, we can imagine not existing. Response: (1) the existence of a necessary first cause is the conclusion of the argument, not a presupposition. We don't believe that God exists necessarily because we can't imagine Him not existing: we can't imagine God at all. (2) Hume's principle is self-defeating. Hume holds that only logical or definitory truths can be necessary. Is this principle supposed to be necessary or contingent? It can't be contingent -- on what empirical evidence is it based. So it must be necessary. But, it isn't a logical truth, and it isn't true by definition. B. The argument commits the fallacy of composition: from the fact that each part of the cosmos is caused, it fallaciously draws the conclusion that the whole cosmos is caused. Response: this is a misstatement of the argument. The argument assumes that all wholly contingent situations are
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}