How the contingency of the universe points to God | with @FreethinkingMinistries

What is the Leibnizian cosmological argument (aka the argument from contingency), and how would you explain it to someone else? In this video, theologian, apologist, and CrossExamined Apologetic Team (CAT) member Tim Stratton lays out several reasons why he thinks the universe's contingency is one of the most effective of all the arguments for the existence of God. Get ready to take some notes!

📚 𝗥𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲𝘀

🤝 𝗦𝗨𝗣𝗣𝗢𝗥𝗧 𝗖𝗥𝗢𝗦𝗦𝗘𝗫𝗔𝗠𝗜𝗡𝗘𝗗 (𝗧𝗔𝗫-𝗗𝗘𝗗𝗨𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗕𝗟𝗘) 🤝

👥 𝗦𝗢𝗖𝗜𝗔𝗟 𝗠𝗘𝗗𝗜𝗔 👥

🗄️ 𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗢𝗨𝗥𝗖𝗘𝗦 🗄️

🎙️ 𝗦𝗨𝗕𝗦𝗖𝗥𝗜𝗕𝗘 𝗧𝗢 𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗣𝗢𝗗𝗖𝗔𝗦𝗧 🎙️

#EvidenceForTheExistenceOfGod #TimStratton

[somerandom]

The contingency argumetn.

1. assume the universe is contingent.
2. misrepresent big bang cosmology.
3. assume that a god is the thing that the universe is contingent on.

[zelkarr]

This is such a bad argument it's laughable.

"Only God could create a universe, the universe exists, therefore god created it, therefore God exists."

Lmfao

[justme]

As Cameron Bowers points out, "this only proves the existence of a non-contingent being/event." Cameron is correct. You need to then establish that of all of the possible non-contingent beings/events it could be, (and there are possibly infinitely many), that god is the one. In fact, there are infinitely many such god cases as well. So, after you establish it's a god (rather than gods), you need to establish that it's your version of god. It's a compelling argument, but it doesn't carry as much weight as Craig or you think. There are possibilities that the universe itself just always was. Or that there exists a higher-order process that produces multiverses, and therefore ours is no more special than the infinitely other instances of universes; we are just one instance of how a universe can exist.

[Steelmage]

I have yet to meet an honest religious apologist.
This video didn't change that.

[charlieallansen]

That was beautifully explained. I had absolutely no trouble following your reasoning and I'm just a simple carpenter!!!! I need things to be simple. Fantastic!!

[darrylelam]

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own existence or in an external cause).
2. If the universe has as explanation of its existence, that explanation is Mickey Mouse.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the explanation of the universe's existence is Mickey Mouse.

Wow, its amazing how the contingency of the universe points to Mickey Mouse creating the universe.

[Fyzl_]

How will you prove that this so called eternal, space less, time less thing has consciousness.

[Matthew_Holton]

except we have no reason to think the universe is contingent and the concept is most likely logically incoherent, as it commits a special pleading fallacy. If something has to exist necessarily (which is by no means certain) then why can it not be reality itself? reality defined as our local universe and whatever lies beyond it (the multiverse). To insert god is therefore an unneccesary, logically incoherent extra step as the god claims falls foul of the special pleading fallacy, it violates the dimensional framework argument and is not consistent with the temporal contingency of causality.

[johnfw]

Man you had my brain spinning for a minute trying to grasp that one

[logicalatheist]

no, the universe does not point to a "god" you need evidence first...

[billmorash]

An argument can be valid but not sound. (as Dr. Stratton has just demonstrated)

[TheTruthKiwi]

Nope. That 2nd premise is too much of a jump and can't be considered "True". Sorry, try again.

[DeconvertedMan]

p2 should be the conclusion - anyone that knows ANYTHING about informal logic would agree.

[steveprofiler]

If Frank Turek asks atheists: Would you become a christian if christianity was true? You could simply answere: That depends if that God if exists, wanted me to since I did not have any choice since I did not asked to be created nor what to believe. And then you could ask Frank Turek: Why would God create anyone against their will? Then he would have to answere something like: God works in mystrious ways that we do not have any knowledge of. And by that or similar answere, he admits we have no free will. And then you can ask Frank Turek why he supports any human to be born if there is a chance that 1 person wish never to have existed? or are antinatalist more loving than the God you believe in Frank Turek?

[whanethewhip]

Philosophical waxing does not prove "god".

[weirdwilliam]

This is full of so many problems. There’s a reason apologetics is only used to retain doubting believers, not to convince anyone else.

[darcymr]

This is circular reasoning. It's not valid.

[weirdwilliam]

Premise 2 is just the conclusion, but slightly reworded. This is classic circular reasoning also called begging the question.

[Whatsisface]

At 2:48 Tim says that if Big Bang cosmology is true, then the universe has not always existed, so the universe seems to be a contingent thing. However, if time and space began at the big bang as cosmologists think, then there was never a time when the universe didn't exist. The bottom line is, time is tricky and there is so much we don't know about why there is something rather than nothing. This doesn't seem to stop Tim talking as if we have it all nailed down. At the very least, he is hasty in his conclusions.

[iconsworld]

Just one criticism, instead of saying God first, just say Neccesary being, because some atheist don't understand the argument from the principle of sufficient reason of the leibnezian argument