Search Results
6/12/2025, 1:33:39 PM
>God is necessary and the universe is necessary (God is P1 and the universe is P2).
>God is necessary and the universe is unnecessary.
False dichotomy right out the gate. These aren’t the only two ways to frame contingency and necessity in the cosmological argument. Aquinas, for instance, held that only God is necessary, and everything else (universe included) is contingent on His will. The idea that necessity must be shared between God and the universe (P1 and P2) is already a step away from classical theism.
>The first proposition fails because God can't be separated from the universe...
This sounds more like pantheism than any coherent cosmological argument. If God is indistinguishable from the universe, then you've abandoned the concept of a transcendent Creator entirely. That's not Thomistic, not even deistic; it’s Spinozan at best. A Traditional Catholic understanding holds that creation reflects God's goodness, but isn't itself divine. A reflection isn’t the source. Evil doesn't "become divine" just because it exists in creation; that would erase the entire distinction between being and moral order.
>The second proposition fails because it violates providence since it is random.
This assumes that if the universe is unnecessary, it must be random. But contingency ≠ chaos. A contingent universe can be created with purpose and order by a necessary God. That’s the whole point of divine providence: God chooses to create a world He didn't have to, but He does so in wisdom and love. No contradiction here.
>In both propositions it means God, God's will, and the universe is arbitrary since there are no prior propositions
You're trying to force God into a philosophical system He isn't bound by. God is the first principle. There are no "prior propositions" because there is no prior being. That's not arbitrariness, that's divine simplicity. His will isn't irrational, it's uncaused because it is the cause.
>God is necessary and the universe is unnecessary.
False dichotomy right out the gate. These aren’t the only two ways to frame contingency and necessity in the cosmological argument. Aquinas, for instance, held that only God is necessary, and everything else (universe included) is contingent on His will. The idea that necessity must be shared between God and the universe (P1 and P2) is already a step away from classical theism.
>The first proposition fails because God can't be separated from the universe...
This sounds more like pantheism than any coherent cosmological argument. If God is indistinguishable from the universe, then you've abandoned the concept of a transcendent Creator entirely. That's not Thomistic, not even deistic; it’s Spinozan at best. A Traditional Catholic understanding holds that creation reflects God's goodness, but isn't itself divine. A reflection isn’t the source. Evil doesn't "become divine" just because it exists in creation; that would erase the entire distinction between being and moral order.
>The second proposition fails because it violates providence since it is random.
This assumes that if the universe is unnecessary, it must be random. But contingency ≠ chaos. A contingent universe can be created with purpose and order by a necessary God. That’s the whole point of divine providence: God chooses to create a world He didn't have to, but He does so in wisdom and love. No contradiction here.
>In both propositions it means God, God's will, and the universe is arbitrary since there are no prior propositions
You're trying to force God into a philosophical system He isn't bound by. God is the first principle. There are no "prior propositions" because there is no prior being. That's not arbitrariness, that's divine simplicity. His will isn't irrational, it's uncaused because it is the cause.
Page 1