REASON- Contingency Argument

Question 1

Summarise the argument

Answer 1

P1) the cause of my existence as a thinking thing must be a) myself b) I have a,ways existed c) my parents, or d) god
P2) I cannot have caused myself to exist for then I would have created myself perfect
P3) neither have I always existed, for then I would be aware of this
P4) my parents may be the cause of my physical existence, but not of me as a thinking mind
C) therefore through elimination only God could have created me

Question 2

What is a criticism of the contingency argument

Answer 2

Could we have been created by a less than perfect being? Could we not have been created by another conscious being less great than god- an evil scientist, evolution? Why must these be the only options for our existence

Question 3

What is the empiricist response of it not being a priori

Answer 3

Both the trademark and contingency arguments view that state of affairs in the world and attempt to deduce the cause. In this way they seem to be abductive arguments but by Eli acting other probable causes. But as they start from observations about how the world is, they should be classed as a posteriori deductions.

Hume would argue that the reliance on the causal principle would undermine their status as deductions, as cause and effects are inductive generalisations