Page History

"It is inappropriate to ask _'Why_ _is 2_ _+_ _2_ _=_ _4?', but not simply because this equality is uncaused; rather, because_ _it_ _is neither caused nor conceptually contingent. The sum of 2 and 2 could not but be 4; hence, there need be no explanation---other than this strict necessity---of why it is not other than 4. But suppose an uncaused God to exist, though rGod\[God's}\] nonexistence was also possible. Then we have a sheer, absolutely inexplicable fact._ _It_ _cannot be explained as necessary; it cannot be explained causally; it is an absolutely irrational fact, yet one upon which aJJall other facts depend. But_ _if_ _this is allowed, why set any limits at all to the inexplicability of fact? Is there no absurdity in the supposition? To a theist it looks like the very apotheosis of absurdity.... IOlnly\[O\]nly the conceptually necessary can reasonably be viewed as uncaused, and only the conceivably caused can reasonably be viewed as conceptual1y contingent._ _It_ _would, to be sure, follow that the laws of nature,_ _if_ _conceptually contingent, as they seem to be, must be caused, but this a theist must suppose anyway.... \[NloN\]o absurdity fol1owsfollows from the identification of 'not conceivably caused' with 'conceptually necessary,' unless theism itself is absurd" (ILls"Is the Denial of Existence Ever Contradictory?": 89)_