Vlad,
The fallacy of composition doesn't touch the definition of contingency nor eliminates a necessary being. Not even your
Usual Saffron Walden Shuffle can make it so.
Wrong again. You assume that the deterministic character of the part of the universe you can observe implies that the universe itself must also be contingent on something else. That’s your fallacy of composition mistake.
So the necessary entity arising from the definition of contingency is sound.
No it isn’t – see above.
What we are down to then is, Is the universe the necessary entity?
To which, currently at least, the only defensible answer is ”don’t know”. What it isn’t though is an excuse to justify a separate necessary entity and then to special plead for it being exempt from needing a cause of its own.
One of the properties of a necessary entity is that it is not composite since there would have to be a reason for how it has as many components there were and that reason would have to be the necessary being.
Drivel. If you want to conjure up from whole cloth one “it’s magic innit” god then why not conjure up instead a squadron of “they’re magic aren’t they” gods instead?
If you are invoking the universe as a composite. Then it fails the test for being the necessary being.
No it doesn’t. All it tells you is that the universe has lots of parts, which may in turn for all I (or you) know have emerged from an original necessary universe.
But don't think that because your objection is down and out there isn't more it can suffer.
Your lack of self-awareness sometimes is remarkable.
A collection of small red bricks may not be a small red wall.
But it is still a collection and it is still red and not blue.
But it may be a wall too, and it may appear a different colour too. What point do you think you’re making here?
Similarly a universe of contingent things does not suddenly and miraculously become a universe of necessary things.
Oh dear. That the universe manifests to you as separate things at one level of abstraction (but may still be just parts of a single, integrated whole nonetheless) doesn’t imply that the universe as a whole necessarily isn’t its own cause, or even isn't eternal for that matter.
But your humiliation still isn't finished.
Such a pity you have no grasp of irony.
Because you are stillfaced with question"What is it about the universe then that is necessary?"
No I’m not. You’re the one making the claim that the universe cannot be its own cause (and then inserting an “it’s magic innit” god to special plead a different cause) so it’s your job to establish first that something other than the universe is necessary for there to be a universe. This is your continued burden of proof mistake that you’ve never managed to grasp.
You make the claim “the universe can’t be necessary”, therefore it’s
your job to justify it without collapsing into fallacies.
Good luck with it though.