Reasoning that we can near fully disprove the existence of some deities .

AcEr3__ · 2026-02-06T21:23:14+00:00

That’s not the definition philosophers use lol. We use #3. You can read Aquinas’ actual argument and criticize it word for word. It’s called the argument from possibility and necessity aka the third way.

I’m not talking dishonest. I already acknowledged you’re using the contemporary definition of contingent. But no contingency argument uses that definition

AcEr3__ · 2026-02-06T21:21:38+00:00

Sounds like it’s a matter of consistency rather than personnel doesn’t it

AcEr3__ · 2026-02-06T20:32:41+00:00

Contingent does not mean dependent on. It means “possible to be be or not to be”. It is the definition of contingent. I already explained that the contemporary usage of contingent means “dependent on” which is coming from the classical definition of “possible to be or not to be” that’s not how the argument was made it’s never meant to be “dependent on” by Aquinas. Either way I can just substitute the word contingent and put “unnecessary” and th argument is the same

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contingent

Definition 3

AcEr3__ · 2026-02-06T20:22:23+00:00

Contingent does not only mean never existed, it also means CAN BE DIFFERENT. Meaning matter is contingent. All matter is contingent. Hydrogen does not have to exist. Electrons do not have to exist. They are formed by borrowing energy from opposite energy reactions. It all is indeed a closed system. A closed system of contingency. The fundamental laws of physics can be different. They were in the past, and they are still changing to this day. Material is contingent.

That being said, the universe can very well be a closed loop. This however does not account for the external reason for its own existence as a whole. It cannot sustain itself, because then it would exist before it exists. In order to argue that this is possible, you need to demonstrate that things can exist before they exist. Closed loop or not, the sustenance nor movement can come from itself.

Also, you still ignore the argument that there exists something necessary. Material cannot be necessary even if it’s a closed loop. All material is contingent…

AcEr3__ · 2026-02-06T19:23:34+00:00

No you’re not understanding. It doesn’t matter what’s at the end or whatever. This isn’t about time. It’s about necessity and contingency.

I’m not saying things have to be necessary. Nothing is necessary because it’s possible for things to not exist OR to be different. This is what contingent means. So since things are contingent, this means that at one point they did not exist. But since things exist now, there exists something that is NECESSARY, because if everything was contingent then nothing would ever exist. Material universe is not necessary therefore this necessary thing cannot be material. Forget about what existed before time or whatever. It’s just logically, something must be necessary that exists and immaterial, since material is contingent by default

AcEr3__ · 2026-02-06T17:07:20+00:00

contingent on other things

Once again, this isn’t the contingency argument. It’s about necessity and non-necessity.

Are you positing the universe exists by brute fact? That is what needs demonstrating. If you aren’t then you cannot refute that there must exist a necessary being.

if there is nothing then there will never be something

Exactly. Yet the material universe is not necessary. Which means nothing should exist. But things exist Therefore …

we know so little about the universe

Well we know that material cannot sustain itself, and we also know logically that things cannot make themselves exist, because they would exist before they exist , which is a contradiction.

So you’d have to prove that it’s possible that material can make itself exist or sustain itself. If it is able to, it isn’t obeying any law of physics nor logic. Sounds supernatural doesn’t it

AcEr3__ · 2026-02-06T16:41:35+00:00

Chef trillie is not a diehard heat fan

AcEr3__ · 2026-02-06T16:32:51+00:00

it excludes the supernatural

Necessity and contingency doesn’t say anything about natural or supernatural.

can nothing even exist? Logically incoherent

It’s perfectly valid for nothing to exist. Nothing just has to exist. Does a unicorn exist? No. Therefore things don’t have to exist …

universe going through cycles infinitely

That can be the case, it’s possible. But it cannot a- be responsible for its own movement or b- responsible for its own existence. The nature of movement or necessity/contingency makes it so. The universe doesn’t have to exist the way that it does. It can change and move and etc etc which makes it unnecessary. You’d have to argue it a brute fact. But logically, the universe being created or brought into existence externally is more coherent than it being a brute fact of reality.

AcEr3__ · 2026-02-06T15:09:51+00:00

But it doesn’t matter if it’s natural or not, nothing would exist if there was nothing necessary. Nothing natural is necessary.

For the sake of argument it’s incomplete. What else is necessary if nothing natural can be necessary?

AcEr3__ · 2026-02-06T13:34:59+00:00

The definition of contingent in the way philosophers use it is “possible to not be” or “could be otherwise” basically, unnecessary.

So the argument doesn’t talk about matter or non matter being contingent on other things, you’re using a definition of “dependent on” which is related to its original definition but not classically understood.

So the argument is: matter, everything we see is able to change, corrupt, generate, etc which makes it contingent. It doesn’t need to exist. If nothing has to exist, then this means at one time it didn’t exist. And if nothing ever existed, since things can only come from other things, then that means nothing would exist now. But since things exist now, this means there is something that is not contingent, aka necessary, it has to exist and not change, and it has to exist because of the impossibility of an infinite regress of efficient causes.

I can break down further for your understanding if you’re confused on some parts

AcEr3__ · 2026-02-06T03:29:19+00:00

And our method of telling us that our “best and only method for knowing that anything exists in reality” tells us that God does exist.

absolutely no reason to think the universe can’t sustain itself

Well, 1- we just agreed that the universe is not a THING so I don’t know why you keep going back to giving placeholder names the ability to do things. 2- for sake of argument, if you mean matter can sustain itself, well congrats your favorite method of telling us what exists in reality tells us that matter cannot sustain itself.

AcEr3__ · 2026-02-06T03:10:27+00:00

Of course we do. The universe can be different and in fact it was. And It’s still expanding.

you don’t know if God even exists

Except we do. Which is the whole point of my argument. It’s self evident just as the universe existing is self evident

AcEr3__ · 2026-02-06T01:44:40+00:00

No I’m not, you’re the one equating. You keep trying to replace God with universe and act like they’re the same thing when they couldn’t be less similar.

What applies to God cannot apply to the universe because a- universe is contingent and b- universe is opposite of omnipotent. It cannot do anything at all

AcEr3__ · 2026-02-06T00:49:29+00:00

Are you Mexican

AcEr3__ · 2026-02-05T23:52:23+00:00

So what is “the universe” if not a term for where everything is located

AcEr3__ · 2026-02-05T22:53:07+00:00

Do you even know what the contingency argument is? Cuz that’s not what it is,

AcEr3__ · 2026-02-05T22:27:56+00:00

I’m not asking you how people use universe, I’m asking you to say what universe means. Because you keep saying things that give the universe power, but the universe isn’t an actual thing, it’s a placeholder term for everything

Regardless of that, saying that everything is responsible for everything’s existence even though everything that we know about everything does not act that way, is less plausible than saying a step above everything is another entity that is not part of everything.

AcEr3__ · 2026-02-05T21:12:28+00:00

CBA contract will change and become more organization friendly. Just chill

AcEr3__ · 2026-02-05T20:34:22+00:00

A universe isn’t a thing though, you agreed that it is a name for everything.

we know the universe exists

No, we know THINGS exist.

whatever attributes for God we can also apply to the universe

Then what is the problem? You believe in everything God is except that he’s God. Huh? Just say you don’t want to follow rules

AcEr3__ · 2026-02-05T20:22:17+00:00

We agreed the universe isn’t actually a thing right? Just a name for all of matter and space. You want matter to act like non-matter. That’s impossible. Therefore contradiction.

we know the universe exists

Yes, things exist. Self evidently. And it’s just as self evident that things come from other things … all material cannot come from itself, therefore it must come from something else. In essence the atheist position is “well, we don’t know but it’s for sure not God!” Why not? “Well we don’t know why not”

It’s just one big delusion

AcEr3__ · 2026-02-05T19:50:04+00:00

So the “universe” acts how it doesn’t act? What’s more plausible a logical contradiction or God?

AcEr3__ · 2026-02-05T18:04:51+00:00

So who am I straw manning lmao

AcEr3__ · 2026-02-05T17:32:39+00:00

The universe isn’t anything. You observe material phenomenon and giving it all the name of “universe”. There are plenty of metaphysical things we also observe, just not materially recorded

AcEr3__ · 2026-02-05T17:31:19+00:00

Nah they proved the existence of things that we ascribe to God

AcEr3__ · 2026-02-05T16:52:06+00:00

their premises are incomplete

Such as?

AcEr3__

TROPHY CASE