A1 is extremely doubtful, especially as applied to the collection of what exists. A2 is simply incorrect, as we can imagine a wide assortment of possible explanations. If "universe" is taken to mean "existence", it isn't clear how there can even be an explanation. A3 is a generally unproblematic assumption, except when it is understood to mean that existence is subject to the laws that describe part of existence.
Attributes | Values |
---|
rdfs:label
| - Argument from Contingency
|
rdfs:comment
| - A1 is extremely doubtful, especially as applied to the collection of what exists. A2 is simply incorrect, as we can imagine a wide assortment of possible explanations. If "universe" is taken to mean "existence", it isn't clear how there can even be an explanation. A3 is a generally unproblematic assumption, except when it is understood to mean that existence is subject to the laws that describe part of existence.
|
dcterms:subject
| |
dbkwik:atheism/pro...iPageUsesTemplate
| |
abstract
| - A1 is extremely doubtful, especially as applied to the collection of what exists. A2 is simply incorrect, as we can imagine a wide assortment of possible explanations. If "universe" is taken to mean "existence", it isn't clear how there can even be an explanation. A3 is a generally unproblematic assumption, except when it is understood to mean that existence is subject to the laws that describe part of existence. It should be noted, however, that science does not currently provide us with good answers to the above questions. Religion, of course, doesn't either. It is doubtful if such answers are even possible; a final explanation of existence seems to be a logical impossibility, as there is nothing outside existence that can explain it.
|