The Contingency Argument for God's existence, in simple language (thread):
When we look at the world around us, we see many things that change. For example, at one time a man may be standing, but at another time he may be sitting. Yet he is the same man. (1/)
But is absolutely everything contingent? Let's consider a man who is standing. Why is he standing *now*? (4/)
Scientists have proposed principles dealing with the conservation of mass and energy to explain why the atoms in the man's body continue to exist. (8/)
One day, it may be possible to explain the current laws of physics in terms of a deeper, more fundamental set of laws. But this would only push the question back one level. (10/)
Another problem is that, in the end, an infinite regress wouldn't explain anything. (14/)
Remember that not absolutely everything needs a cause or explanation. Only things that are contingent...(15/)
More from Religion
As the Fall of man was a consequence of the pursuit of our own good, this quest intrinsically contains the possibility of our return to The Good. The route back to The Good was only revealed by The Way [Jn. 14:6], so we might say that Christ incarnates to complete the Circle.
Each thing is moved by, implicitly converted or turned back to, its own good by its cause of procession - which is principally God.
"Via est nobis tendendi in Deum." - St. Thomas Aquinas, which is to say that:
Christ, who as a man, is the way of our tending (back) into God.
Ezekiel 10:6 | When the LORD commanded the man in linen, “Take fire from among the wheels, from among the cherubim,” the man went in and stood beside a wheel.
"So I saw the glorious wheel move." - Dante, Paradiso 10.145
As Scripture and Dante see God's providence in circles, so did Boethius and Platonists more
Aquinas with, "Eadem est via qua descenditur et ascenditur." [SCG 4.1.3], brings back Heraclitus to the medievals, "The way up and the way down is the same." [Diels, B60]
The way up and the way down are the same.
Each thing is moved by, implicitly converted or turned back to, its own good by its cause of procession - which is principally God.
"Via est nobis tendendi in Deum." - St. Thomas Aquinas, which is to say that:
Christ, who as a man, is the way of our tending (back) into God.
Ezekiel 10:6 | When the LORD commanded the man in linen, “Take fire from among the wheels, from among the cherubim,” the man went in and stood beside a wheel.
"So I saw the glorious wheel move." - Dante, Paradiso 10.145
As Scripture and Dante see God's providence in circles, so did Boethius and Platonists more
Imagine a set of concentric circles. The inmost one comes closest to the simplicity of the centre, while forming itself a kind of centre around which revolve those which are set outside it. The circle furthest out rotates through a wider orbit.
— \u300e\U0001d622\U0001d633\U0001d633\U0001d636\U0001d634\u300f (@arrus_kacchi) December 26, 2020
Aquinas with, "Eadem est via qua descenditur et ascenditur." [SCG 4.1.3], brings back Heraclitus to the medievals, "The way up and the way down is the same." [Diels, B60]
The way up and the way down are the same.
"Hinduism was one of the world's most easy-going faith traditions, famed for it's non-persecutory history."
I can assure you, it is NOT.
It is neither easy-going, nor non-persecutory. In fact it is the very opposite.
Thread.
Modern Hinduism is a British colonial concept, created in concert with Brahmins, who are at the "apex" of the caste system. The word "Hindoo" in fact, is of Persian origin, meaning a person who lives in the Indus valley.
Colonialists who attempted to study Indian religion in the 18th century (NOT, at the time, Hinduism) were baffled by it. Strata of people living distinctly (the caste system) with overlapping gods didn't fit into their Judeo-Christian understanding of religion.
Which has an ecclesiastical authority, a holy book etc., which Indian religions lacked. In studying "The Hindoo", colonialists prioritized textual sources of knowledge, which is where Brahmins, the priestly caste with a monopoly over education/text come in.
Brahminism was a distinct "religion" (although i don't really want to use the term in this way) that was frankly terrorized of other castes. In fact, the very basis of Brahminism is oppression. Brahmins had scholars who recorded *Brahminical* canon textually.
I can assure you, it is NOT.
It is neither easy-going, nor non-persecutory. In fact it is the very opposite.
Thread.
Hinduism was historically one of the world's most easy-going faith traditions, famed for its non-persecutory history. Now this ... pic.twitter.com/Obln4cns7b
— David Frum (@davidfrum) February 3, 2021
Modern Hinduism is a British colonial concept, created in concert with Brahmins, who are at the "apex" of the caste system. The word "Hindoo" in fact, is of Persian origin, meaning a person who lives in the Indus valley.
Colonialists who attempted to study Indian religion in the 18th century (NOT, at the time, Hinduism) were baffled by it. Strata of people living distinctly (the caste system) with overlapping gods didn't fit into their Judeo-Christian understanding of religion.
Which has an ecclesiastical authority, a holy book etc., which Indian religions lacked. In studying "The Hindoo", colonialists prioritized textual sources of knowledge, which is where Brahmins, the priestly caste with a monopoly over education/text come in.
Brahminism was a distinct "religion" (although i don't really want to use the term in this way) that was frankly terrorized of other castes. In fact, the very basis of Brahminism is oppression. Brahmins had scholars who recorded *Brahminical* canon textually.
You May Also Like
Trending news of The Rock's daughter Simone Johnson's announcing her new Stage Name is breaking our Versus tool because "Wrestling Name" isn't in our database!
Here's the most useful #Factualist comparison pages #Thread 🧵
What is the difference between “pseudonym” and “stage name?”
Pseudonym means “a fictitious name (more literally, a false name), as those used by writers and movie stars,” while stage name is “the pseudonym of an entertainer.”
https://t.co/hT5XPkTepy #english #wiki #wikidiff
People also found this comparison helpful:
Alias #versus Stage Name: What’s the difference?
Alias means “another name; an assumed name,” while stage name means “the pseudonym of an entertainer.”
https://t.co/Kf7uVKekMd #Etymology #words
Another common #question:
What is the difference between “alias” and “pseudonym?”
As nouns alias means “another name; an assumed name,” while pseudonym means “a fictitious name (more literally, a false name), as those used by writers and movie
Here is a very basic #comparison: "Name versus Stage Name"
As #nouns, the difference is that name means “any nounal word or phrase which indicates a particular person, place, class, or thing,” but stage name means “the pseudonym of an
Here's the most useful #Factualist comparison pages #Thread 🧵
What is the difference between “pseudonym” and “stage name?”
Pseudonym means “a fictitious name (more literally, a false name), as those used by writers and movie stars,” while stage name is “the pseudonym of an entertainer.”
https://t.co/hT5XPkTepy #english #wiki #wikidiff
People also found this comparison helpful:
Alias #versus Stage Name: What’s the difference?
Alias means “another name; an assumed name,” while stage name means “the pseudonym of an entertainer.”
https://t.co/Kf7uVKekMd #Etymology #words
Another common #question:
What is the difference between “alias” and “pseudonym?”
As nouns alias means “another name; an assumed name,” while pseudonym means “a fictitious name (more literally, a false name), as those used by writers and movie
Here is a very basic #comparison: "Name versus Stage Name"
As #nouns, the difference is that name means “any nounal word or phrase which indicates a particular person, place, class, or thing,” but stage name means “the pseudonym of an
