Enki firstly it isn't my problem if you can't follow the basic logic of necessity and contingency.
Secondly all you have ended up arguing for is an eternal universe and if that is the case there still has to be a necessary aspect for contingency. What then is it.
Thirdly you are treating my analogy like a homology.
I suppose you could eliminate all problems regarding an infinite resulting in a universe if a follows b follows c to infinity by making this circular but then you would have reinvented the perpetual motion machine.
If you are saying therefore that the universe is it's own necessity then please show what this is, where I can find it and what dimensions and properties i'm looking for.
But at the end of the day you cannot have contingency without necessity...…….period.
Firstly, Your logic is based on the premise that there has to be a necessary cause which isn't contingent on anything. I have pointed out the problem of identifying that first cause, or even identifying that such a thing exists. It is not my problem if you cannot appreciate the challenges that such a premise produces.
Secondly, I haven't argued for anything at all. I have simply given you alternatives. E.G. the continuous expansion/contraction idea or the idea of infinite contingency. I see problems in all these, just as much as your idea that you can't have contingency without a necessary.
Thirdly, then don't produce analogies which have no particular use in the context of which we were discussing by putting in an arbitrary necessary.
Finally, I have not said that I favour any of these conjectures including the 'circular' argument. Indeed I see problems in all of them. so I see no reason to argue for any of them.
