Page History

SCANNED PDF

Wiki Markup"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 explanation—other than this strict necessity-of 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 aJJ all 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 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.... \[Nlo absurdity fol1ows from the identification of 'not conceivably caused' with 'conceptually necessary,' unless theism itself is absurd" (ILls the Denial of Existence Ever Contradictory?": 89)_ [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. . . . [N]o absurdity follows from the identification of 'not conceivably caused' with 'conceptually necessary,' unless theism itself is absurd" ("Is the Denial of Existence Ever Contradictory?": 89)