Jonathan G.

  • **
  • 574 Posts
    • View Profile
Argument from contingency first premise
« on: July 07, 2015, 10:01:35 pm »
I have a question regarding the Leibnizian cosmological argument from contingency. (L.C.A.)

The first premise states that "everything that exists has an explanation either in the necessity of its own nature or an external cause." My concern is with, "explanation by the necessity of its own nature"

Does this mean one has to grant that necessary beings like abstract objects exist?

Or does it just mean that IF they exist, then they exist by a necessity of their own nature?

Because if it's the former, that would be a problem on Craig's theology because he doesn't believe in abstract objects. But if someone doesn't grant that abstract objects exist and the argument requires necessary beings to exist, then it would seem like the argument would be question begging in favor of God's existence. Finally, it's not obvious that abstract objects exist.

I think I know the answer, I just wanted to see if other people thought about this. It seems to me that the premise is making a fairly modest claim and is to be interpreted as saying IF any necessary being exists then it exists by a necessity of its own nature.

1

Language-Gamer

  • ****
  • 7755 Posts
  • I sneezed on the beet and Dwight got mad.
    • View Profile
Re: Argument from contingency first premise
« Reply #1 on: July 08, 2015, 10:13:45 am »
It is if it exists.
I told her all about how we been livin' a lie
And that they love to see us all go to prison or die
Like, "Baby, look at how they show us on the TV screen"
But all she ever want me to do is unzip her jeans

2

Jonathan G.

  • **
  • 574 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Argument from contingency first premise
« Reply #2 on: July 08, 2015, 04:06:47 pm »