The argument from contingency is an attempt to get around the "turtles all the way down" problem of infinite regression (see the previous post int this series for a definition of turtles all the way down). The argument is pretty simple, and goes like this:
I exist, but I didn't have to exist. If my parents had not gotten together I would not exist. Likewise they didn't have to exist. If their parents had not gotten together... you see where I am going with this? Likewise for the clouds, moon, sun and stars; they are all contingent upon something else bringing them into being. The thing that brought them all into being is what we call "God."
Here's a video where Bishop Robert Barron explains it far better than I can.
"But Mike, why does it have to be God? Couldn't it be 'the universe' that brought everything into existence?" What we are talking about here is something or someone that is not contingent on anything else - does not depend on something else to bring about its existence. This is not a proof of an old guy sitting on a throne, this is proof that something exists - be it a force or a person.
But all of matter space and time are contingent, according to physics. It can't bring about itself without being "turtles all the way down." So no matter what "God" is in this instance, it is not the universe or anything in it.
Stephen Hawking famously declared at one point that "gravity" created the universe. Think about that. The two currently accepted ways of thinking about gravity are that it is a curvature of space-time (Einstein) or that it consists of particles called "gravitons" (quantum theory). If gravity is an effect of space-time (Einstein) it can hardly exist without space-time. If gravity exists withing space-time (quantum physics) it can hardly have created space-time. Either way, and though Hawking may be a brilliant man, this statement is nonsensical.
Next up, existence!
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment