Is there a GOD??? If there is, prove it!
Science observes and measures the natural world. From those data science infers the empirical laws that govern physical and biological processes. Explanations of large classes of phenomena must make testable predictions and be falsifiable; that is, there must be a way to make an observation that could disprove the explanation. The requirement of falsifiability rules out all supernatural explanation; you cannot disprove, for instance, the claim that God scattered fossils throughout rock strata to make it look as if a species had evolved over millions of years. God may have done that, but we’ll never know and there is no way to disprove it. In that way, faith is fundamentally different from science. But, if you want a proof of God, here’s the best that I can do:
The sum total of mass/energy is divine—divine as the negation of not-God. But, since not—not God is a logical affirmation of God then God must exist (a transcendent God); and further, because the sum total of everything that is the negation of not-God (the Immanence of God) logically implies the existence of God, the Immanence of God (you, me, and the rest of creation—proves the existence of God. That settles the question for me, how about you?
What does contingency mean (Philosophy)?
In the above example contingency works like this: X cannot be true without Y, therefore X is contingent upon Y if X exists. In order for the universe to exist then something Y must first exist. In other words, the universe is contingent upon something else or it cannot exist. Coincidentally, I use contingency in the same way for my upcoming blog post–only I am saying the self is contingent upon Y for its existence. Here’s a bit of the post:
However, this “otherness” is grounded in the contingency of the self’s affirmation of “otherness”. Emancipatory experience follows from this contingency in that the self and “other selves” must affirm their not-me-selves (their “otherness”). Recognizing that contingency resides at the center of the self’s emancipatory experience Bauman states (1991: 236): “The right of the Other to his strangerhood is the only way in which my own right may express, establish and defend itself. It is from the right of the Other that my right is put together.”
It is this contingency–the contingency which binds a person’s “self” to society and to “others”–which manifests the micro-level voice of the implicative affirmative of the not-me-self, a voice whose only claim to authority is a claim to contingency, a contingency without which it could not exist. Simpson (1995: 127) in response to the question: “Are we playing the right game?” (acting on the “right” collective voice), gives voice to the “meaning of contingency” when he states: “(It is)…the virtual ‘we’ of a humanity that is a negotiated, unfinished project functioning as an ideal community, a notion that makes a virtue both of being open to and willing to take seriously the conjecture that there is a disjunction between one’s own standpoint and the regulative ideal of the ‘good life,’ and of being critically respectful of the other.”
It is really odd that you should ask this question and I am answering it–a bit of serendipity I guess.