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
just a my thought...
❶/12 Roughly speaking, primitive Buddhism was about liberation from the inner suffering of the ordained individual. In contrast, Mahayana Buddhism, especially the teachings of the Lotus Sutra, emphasises 'the salvation of all people, together'.
❷/12 In short, people of Mahayana Buddhism do Practice as Bodhisattva for all in the secular world. Strictly, these are different religions, and primitive Buddhism is not well suited to being associated with the state or secular communities.
❸/12 I believe that if anti-secular primitive Buddhism had arrived in ancient Japan it would not have spread very far. In Japan, where rice cultivation is very important, the idea of destroying the community would have been a threat of people's survival.
❹/12 By the way, it's perhaps inevitable that the purity of the teachings will diminish depending on how they are disseminated in society. In other words, I think that, roughly speaking, what develops away from the original form can even become a civilization.
❺/12 But anything that significantly reduces the quality of the original should be called a degeneration. I think that Christian civilization, although flawed, has built a civilization in tension.
❶/12 Roughly speaking, primitive Buddhism was about liberation from the inner suffering of the ordained individual. In contrast, Mahayana Buddhism, especially the teachings of the Lotus Sutra, emphasises 'the salvation of all people, together'.
Bodhisattva is also important for understanding the Japanese. It was a very developed in Mahayana Buddhism. Liberators keep putting off and dedicating until all people are saved. This is an ideal prototype. But this devoted tradition is disappearing under the Weimar Constitution. https://t.co/uBTcwOjlWt
— Atsumori \u6566\u76db (@atsumori5834) January 9, 2020
❷/12 In short, people of Mahayana Buddhism do Practice as Bodhisattva for all in the secular world. Strictly, these are different religions, and primitive Buddhism is not well suited to being associated with the state or secular communities.
❸/12 I believe that if anti-secular primitive Buddhism had arrived in ancient Japan it would not have spread very far. In Japan, where rice cultivation is very important, the idea of destroying the community would have been a threat of people's survival.
❹/12 By the way, it's perhaps inevitable that the purity of the teachings will diminish depending on how they are disseminated in society. In other words, I think that, roughly speaking, what develops away from the original form can even become a civilization.
❺/12 But anything that significantly reduces the quality of the original should be called a degeneration. I think that Christian civilization, although flawed, has built a civilization in tension.
