re: Any logicians in the house?

  1. Yak
    13,672 Posts.
    Mate...I havent even had my croissant yet...!

    Ex nihilo nihil fit as you define it - out of nothing comes nothing - is I think quite clearly dealt with by a variety of philosophers including one of my favourites Aquinas. He uses it to postulate that if something pops out of existence, it cannot pop back into existence. Once something ceases to exist, it cannot suddenly exist again.

    But I think that alone would fail in its arguement. You would need to go to a couple of whats called principles...in this case the principle of plentitude which suggests that if something is a real possibility, then given an infinite amount of time, it should happen.
    (sort of like the monkees with typewriters prodicing an encyclopedia) - isnt that Hansard :)??

    This is where it starts to get a bit thick and hairy.

    For it follows then, that real possibilities show up and only real ones continue to exist whilst unnecessary and hence contigent possibiilities will at some stage cease to exist.

    And.....if everything is contingent (and that may be a real possibility that everything is contingent), then theoretically, everything could go out of existence at once, given that time is infinite at any point, such as right now!

    But...if that were the case, then there would be nothing now!!!

    I think that notion is absurd since we have the evidence of existent things which we can perceive.

    Wait for it...its coming.....

    Yet, that could be because everything pops out of existence, then back into existence. But as Aquinas argues above once your out - -you're out!!

    And it is from this miasma of hard-to-grasp ideas on a Sat$rday morning after the night before that the arguement for the proof of god comes

    The next and last step is the postulate that there is a hierarchy of being with necessary existence, each lower being dependent upon the higher to infinity.

    The hierarchy of necessary existence itself would need an explanation for its existence.

    The arguement then relies on the principle of sufficient reason, which states that everything that happens has to have a sufficient explanation for occurences.

    Almost there.....so since the hierarchy of necessary existences would therefore need to be explained, because of the principle of sufficient reason, it would need a self-explaining necessary being, standing outside the series, to explain the order of the hierarchy.

    Deductively, that self-explaining necessary being would be that which humans understand to be God.

    Viola...The self-explaining necessary existence upon which all things are contingent in all possible worlds
    known as God

    Whew...I think thats how the arguement goes

    Good question


 
arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.