The Contingency

accelerationist

accelerationist

ND boy against an NT org
Joined
Nov 2, 2025
Posts
248
Reputation
491
Honestly i don’t even have to make a large argument against this… the fact that you need to believe in a non-contingent objectively illogical being already proves this argument to be cucked, it’s a leap in logic

  1. Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence, either in its own necessary nature or in an external cause.
  2. The universe is a contingent thing; it exists but does not exist by necessity of its own nature.
  3. Therefore, the universe must have an external cause.
  4. The explanation for the existence of all contingent beings is a single, non-contingent, necessary being.
  5. This necessary being is identified as God.
This is not an explanation, this is just ignoring logic. All things must be contingent, this is something that you instinctively understand and not come to- understand with time…

“The explanation for the existence of all contingent beings is an objectively illogical and incomprehensible being”


There are only two options. you either give up on meaning- or choose to believe in illogical answers regarding our reality
 
  • +1
Reactions: proxyy, Mr_Bombo_mogs and NinjaRG9
@NinjaRG9
 
  • +1
Reactions: NinjaRG9
How does the universe exist without the necessity of its own nature ? Cosmological arguments fail to reckon that the Universe is indefinite only so as to accomodate our understanding of physics
 
Last edited:
  • +1
Reactions: accelerationist
LXR said:
How does the universe exist without the necessity of its own nature ? Cosmological arguments fail to reckon that the Universe is indefinite only so as to accomodate our understanding of physics
Click to expand...
Because of the necessary essence that hold it into existence
 
LXR said:
How does the universe exist without the necessity of its own nature ? Cosmological arguments fail to reckon that the Universe is indefinite only so as to accomodate our understanding of physics
Click to expand...
We identify a beginning to the universe tho
 
fk732 said:
We identify a beginning to the universe tho
Click to expand...
Merely a theory that is accepted. Even theories pertaning to quantum physics have acceptance, that doesnt mean those are without holes. Unless those holes are filled, nothing can be ascertained. More investigation is required
 
  • +1
Reactions: Mr_Bombo_mogs and accelerationist
fk732 said:
Because its methamhysic not physics?
Click to expand...
That still requires logical basis. None of the theological explanations of modern religions adequately explain how a divine Being can function as explained in holy texts much less exist. Only Spinoza has a digestible concept of God and that ends up tying as one with Nature
 
  • +1
Reactions: accelerationist
LXR said:
That still requires logical basis. None of the theological explanations of modern religions adequately explain how a divine Being can function as explained in holy texts much less exist. Only Spinoza has a digestible concept of God and that ends up tying as one with Nature
Click to expand...
Thats your own belief mate but catholicism explain it well
 
fk732 said:
Thats your own belief mate but catholicism explain it well
Click to expand...
Scholastic Metaphysics is semantic noodle. God is Necessary, Simple, Pure, Omniscient, Omnipotent. These concepts are one in Him but as concepts they are distinct. To explain their distinction, Scholastic metaphysics uses more vague words. Everything that is Gods essence is one with Him, but also explained as distinct
 
Last edited:
  • +1
Reactions: accelerationist
LXR said:
Scholastic Metaphysics is semantic noodle. God is Necessary, Simple, Pure, Omniscient, Omnipotent. These concepts are one in Him but as concepts they distinct. To explain their distinction, Scholastic metaphysics uses more vague words. Everything that is Gods essence is one with Him, but also explained as distinct
Click to expand...
Its theological words to describe the nature of God essence, its for us to have a better understanding of God
 
fk732 said:
Its theological words to describe the nature of God essence, its for us to have a better understanding of God
Click to expand...
The Catholic God is beyond human comprehension. If one cannot know any absolute property of an entity, then it can't be described via analogy. There are much better explanations of God
 
  • +1
Reactions: accelerationist
LXR said:
The Catholic God is beyond human comprehension. If one cannot know any absolute property of an entity, then it can't be described via analogy. There are much better explanations of God
Click to expand...
Yes
 
  • +1
Reactions: NinjaRG9 and LXR
theRetard said:
then why do you use abstractions to debunk abstractions?
Click to expand...
Literally such a useless thing to ponder about lol you aren’t gonna waste my time with your reddit topics again
 
  • +1
Reactions: Mr_Bombo_mogs and NinjaRG9
if God was real he would smite me dead right now
 
LXR said:
The Catholic God is beyond human comprehension. If one cannot know any absolute property of an entity, then it can't be described via analogy. There are much better explanations of God
Click to expand...
Again thats false where did you learn abt catholicism? And the theres "better explanation" thats so fkn subjective man cmon
 
fk732 said:
Again thats false where did you learn abt catholicism? And the theres "better explanation" thats so fkn subjective man cmon
Click to expand...
Isiah 55:8-9: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts"

Job 11:7-9:
“Can you fathom the mysteries of God?
Can you probe the limits of the Almighty?
They are higher than the heavens above—what can you do?
They are deeper than the depths below—what can you know?”

Corinthians

“God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, image-bound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God — ‘the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable’ — with our human representations.” - Catechism of the Catholic Church


Its not subjective that the rigid metaphysical explanation of the Catholic God is much worse than the conception of God by Spinoza. Pantheism, deism and panentheism is much less rigid in its explanations of a Divine Being, tying it with the Universe.
 
Last edited:
LXR said:
Isiah 55:8-9: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts"

Job 11:7-9:
“Can you fathom the mysteries of God?
Can you probe the limits of the Almighty?
They are higher than the heavens above—what can you do?
They are deeper than the depths below—what can you know?”

Corinthians

“God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, image-bound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God — ‘the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable’ — with our human representations.” - Catechism of the Catholic Church


Its not subjective that the rigid metaphysical explanation of the Catholic God is much worse than the conception of God by Spinoza. Pantheism, deism and panentheism is much less rigid in its explanations of a Divine Being, tying it with the Universe.
Click to expand...
So once again you make a categorical mistake the fact that the greatest thing is out of our understanding ( wich is logic btw ) doesn’t mean we can develop theological truth of him by his help. Second point, the fact that the God of spinoza make more sense to you is totally an emotional argument vro idgaf
 
fk732 said:
You piss me off we dont gaf abt ur larping you are a fat ugly bitch
Click to expand...
Anime cry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (Looksmaxers: 0, Bluepillers: 2)
Back
Top