Why not believe in Thor or Leprechauns?

[Stranger]

There remains no clear philosophical refutation of the argument from Contingency. It remains the most reasonable argument due to the principle of sufficient reason.

Then, where is it?

Why are you so fucking terrified of posting it? The original (Aquinas) was riddled with obvious fallacies and ignorance of modern science.

[Stranger]

The argument from contingency does not depend on time.

Then prove it by posting it.

[ProfessorDavey]

The argument from contingency does not depend on time.

Yes it does as the standard argument from contingency is based on a series of cause/effect elements - A causes B, B causes C, C causes D etc. But that is predicated on a series of temporal events that work fine in our general linear temporal world where time is a constant and runs in one direction only. But that isn't necessarily the case.

[Stranger]

Yes it does as the standard argument from contingency is based on a series of cause/effect elements - A causes B, B causes C, C causes D etc.

Actually, although the original (see the 'third way' here) does depend on time, it isn't the same as a first cause argument that requires chains of cause and effect as you suggest. This is the problem with arguing about an argument that Vlad is just pretending has been made but won't specify.

As it stands, the original is obviously silly but there have been several attempts to update it. However, as long as Vlad hides behind the ambiguity, he can just make up any shit he wants and get others to run around after him.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdism:

1. I believe something to be true.

2. I believe it to be true because I have an argument to justify my belief.

3. I’m not going to tell you what that argument is.

4. You haven't refuted the argument that I keep secret.

5. Therefore the argument is sound.

6. Therefore the belief is justified.

7. Repeat endlessly. 

[Stranger]

Vladdism:

1. I believe something to be true.

2. I believe it to be true because I have an argument to justify my belief.

3. I’m not going to tell you what that argument is.

4. You haven't refuted the argument that I keep secret.

5. Therefore the argument is sound.

6. Therefore the belief is justified.

7. Repeat endlessly.

Except I think the argument is imaginary, rather than secret, so no matter what anybody says, he can just make up some bullshit in order to claim that it doesn't refute the (non-existent) argument.

[Outrider]

(Clarke's) Argument from contingency (courtesy of Introduction to Philosophy, by Philip A. Pecorino - https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/Chapter%203%20Religion/Cosmological.htm)

Premises:

1.     Every being that exists is either contingent or necessary.

2.     Not every being can be contingent.

3.     Therefore, there exists a necessary being on which the contingent beings depend.

4.     A necessary being, on which all contingent things depend, is what we mean by “God”.

Conclusion:

5.     Therefore, God exists.

There are a number of criticisms of the various stage of this, but for me the most obvious is that point 2 is completely baseless - there is no definitive reason why everything in existence should not be contingent on prior events. Therefore, the argument fails.

O.

[jeremyp]

There are reasons and logic to suggest the necessary entity.

What are they?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Except I think the argument is imaginary, rather than secret, so no matter what anybody says, he can just make up some bullshit in order to claim that it doesn't refute the (non-existent) argument

I’m sure you’re right about that, but I was giving hm the benefit of the doubt.

Three options here:

1. He has no argument, but pretends that he has.

2. He has an argument, but he knows it's hopeless so won’t post it because he knows it’ll be falsified.

3. He has an argument that he thinks is sound, but for some reason wants to keep it secret nonetheless.   

As he consistently refuses not only to answer questions but refuses too to tell us why he won’t answer questions, we’ll likely never know which it is though – which is why he has nothing of interest or value to say. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Actually, although the original (see the 'third way' here) does depend on time, it isn't the same as a first cause argument that requires chains of cause and effect as you suggest. This is the problem with arguing about an argument that Vlad is just pretending has been made but won't specify.

As it stands, the original is obviously silly but there have been several attempts to update it. However, as long as Vlad hides behind the ambiguity, he can just make up any shit he wants and get others to run around after him.

Indeed.

I read the Aquinus stuff and it is laughable. The prelude arguments are shot through with holes, but there is no attempt at and kind of rational argument at the end conclusions, which is effectively 'ta, ra, god' couched in nonsense such as 'and this everyone understands to be God'. Err no we don't, and even if we accept the prelude arguments it does not lead necessarily to god as there are plenty of non-deitic plausible explanations.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

(Clarke's) Argument from contingency (courtesy of Introduction to Philosophy, by Philip A. Pecorino - https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/Chapter%203%20Religion/Cosmological.htm)

Premises:

1.     Every being that exists is either contingent or necessary.

2.     Not every being can be contingent.

3.     Therefore, there exists a necessary being on which the contingent beings depend.

4.     A necessary being, on which all contingent things depend, is what we mean by “God”.

Conclusion:

5.     Therefore, God exists.

There are a number of criticisms of the various stage of this, but for me the most obvious is that point 2 is completely baseless - there is no definitive reason why everything in existence should not be contingent on prior events. Therefore, the argument fails.

O.

If not every entity can be contingent is false. Please demonstrate how every being can be contingent is true.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

(Clarke's) Argument from contingency (courtesy of Introduction to Philosophy, by Philip A. Pecorino - https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/Chapter%203%20Religion/Cosmological.htm)

Premises:

1.     Every being that exists is either contingent or necessary.

2.     Not every being can be contingent.

3.     Therefore, there exists a necessary being on which the contingent beings depend.

4.     A necessary being, on which all contingent things depend, is what we mean by “God”.

Conclusion:

5.     Therefore, God exists.

There are a number of criticisms of the various stage of this, but for me the most obvious is that point 2 is completely baseless - there is no definitive reason why everything in existence should not be contingent on prior events. Therefore, the argument fails.

O.

The notion of contingency is meaningless without the context of necessity. The trouble is I think, we have gentlemen either been taught that language is pliable or we've deliberately been dishonest in our use of it.

So nonsense like contingency without necessity has come about.

If the universe is contingent the next logical question is ''On what''? If your answer is nothing then you have declared the universe necessary. It is unavoidable.

[ProfessorDavey]

If not every entity can be contingent is false. Please demonstrate how every being can be contingent is true.

Via an inter-related network and where time is relative and not fixed. Easy.

I think the following analogy reflects your rather simplistic and naive view.

Imagine a situation where there is (from the perspective of a simplistic observer) a straight running track. The observer states that if there are five runners there must be one in front (the necessary entity) and the others following (contingent) and none of the other runners can ever reach the front unless they overtake the leader. Seems reasonable, but only if we accept a narrow view of space and time.

So on space - if the track is, in fact, not linear but circular, then it becomes perfectly possible to the last to appear to be first at a particular time without ever having to overtake anyone. And it becomes impossible to determine a leader (necessary entity) and indeed all of the runners are actually following someone else (all are contingent). Secondly on time - this only works if time is uni-directional (and remember that time is a relative phenomenon). If not then apparent reversal of time can make the race run backwards, so again the person perceived as first suddenly becomes last.

[ProfessorDavey]

The notion of contingency is meaningless without the context of necessity.

No it isn't - it is perfectly possible (and indeed happens all the time) to have systems in which each element is dependent on another element (all are contingent) but none is necessary, in other words has to exist. All you need is a system with multiple pathways and built in redundancy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Via an inter-related network and where time is relative and not fixed. Easy.

I think the following analogy reflects your rather simplistic and naive view.

Imagine a situation where there is (from the perspective of a simplistic observer) a straight running track. The observer states that if there are five runners there must be one in front (the necessary entity) and the others following (contingent) and none of the other runners can ever reach the front unless they overtake the leader. Seems reasonable, but only if we accept a narrow view of space and time.

You have just labelled the one in front the necessary being without stating why. It was put to you that the  argument from contingency is not dependent on spatial or temporal position but on being. In which case there is nothing about where a runner is which suggests his necessity or contingency.

So on space - if the track is, in fact, not linear but circular, then it becomes perfectly possible to the last to appear to be first at a particular time without ever having to overtake anyone. And it becomes impossible to determine a leader (necessary entity) and indeed all of the runners are actually following someone else (all are contingent). Secondly on time - this only works if time is uni-directional (and remember that time is a relative phenomenon). If not then apparent reversal of time can make the race run backwards, so again the person perceived as first suddenly becomes last.

Waste of time.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it isn't - it is perfectly possible (and indeed happens all the time) to have systems in which each element is dependent on another element (all are contingent) but none is necessary, in other words has to exist. All you need is a system with multiple pathways and built in redundancy.

This is like saying the universe comes about because there are lots of things in it. Completely unhelpful bollocks i'm afraid.

[ProfessorDavey]

This is like saying the universe comes about because there are lots of things in it. Completely unhelpful bollocks i'm afraid.

Oh dear the universe comes about - clearly implying time to be linear and unidirectional, in other words a time before the universe comes about and a time after it comes about. You are making unsubstantiated assumptions about time I'm afraid Vlad.

[ProfessorDavey]

This is like saying the universe comes about because there are lots of things in it. Completely unhelpful bollocks i'm afraid.

And actually I'm not talking about the universe per se, merely saying that it is perfectly possible (and demonstrable) for systems to contain only contingent entities, so that any single entity can be removed without affecting the integrity of the network - in other words no entity is necessary (i.e. has to exist for the rest of the entities to exist and be functional).

[Stranger]

The notion of contingency is meaningless without the context of necessity. The trouble is I think, we have gentlemen either been taught that language is pliable or we've deliberately been dishonest in our use of it.

Wow, talk about pot-kettle-black!

You have yet to set out or endorse a version of the argument you keep on nonsensically gibbering about. Your next task then is to properly define 'necessity' and tell us why necessity-contingency has to be a dichotomy, so what about things that just happen to exist for no reason at all? If you are going to exclude them, then that needs justification too.

You then have to explain exactly how it is even possible for anything to be necessary (i.e. could not have failed to exist) so we could have some tiny idea of what sort of thing we might talking about.

In short Vlad, we're still waiting for you to produce the first fucking hint of an actual argument and to make some sort of attempt at properly defining your terms.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And actually I'm not talking about the universe per se, merely saying that it is perfectly possible (and demonstrable) for systems to contain only contingent entities, so that any single entity can be removed without affecting the integrity of the network - in other words no entity is necessary (i.e. has to exist for the rest of the entities to exist and be functional).

Yes what you are saying is your system has been constructed that way to function on it's own. So if you are include the necessity and that isn't part of the system. The contingency can work by itself. That could describe deism where God or the necessary entity has removed itself having constructed a universe to do that. You haven't removed the necessary entity, It has removed itself of course. The problem with deism is there are no guarantees that the necssary entity does not slot himself back in on occasions.

Secondly, What about Godels theory where a system isn't described by merely it's own components.

I guess what I am saying is that your theory doesn't necessarily explain how your system come's about and patently ignores it's providence. It doesn't seem to make any dent on the argument from contingency.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It doesn't seem to make any dent on the argument from contingency.

What argument from contingency - the one you either don't have or do have but want to keep secret?

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes what you are saying is your system has been constructed that way to function on it's own.

Some of these systems self-assemble so aren't really constructed that way

You also seem terribly confused between necessary elements (in other words something that cannot fail to exist for other contingent things to happen) and first cause. They aren't the same, albeit presumably a first cause would also be a necessary entity, noting that the whole concept of first cause is predicated on time being uni-linear and constant, which isn't necessarily the case.

So there can be plenty of entities that are both necessary within one context, but contingent within another.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

What argument from contingency - the one you either don't have or do have but want to keep secret?

The one that has led Professor Davey to acknowledge there might be a necessary entity?

Now you've returned what with you and that other chap ''Never talk''(If only he took his own advice) I don't know if I want to stick around to be Gaslit.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The one that has led Professor Davey to acknowledge there might be a necessary entity?

"Might be"? There might be anything - leprechauns included. How does that supported you're entirely un-argued assertion that there is a necessary entity?

Now you've returned what with you and that other chap ''Never talk''(If only he took his own advice) I don't know if I want to stick around to be Gaslit.

Asking you to set out your (supposed) argument isn't gaslighting - it's just asking you to set out your (supposed) argument. That you resolutely cannot or will not do so tells its own story.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Some of these systems self-assemble so aren't really constructed that way

You also seem terribly confused between necessary elements (in other words something that cannot fail to exist for other contingent things to happen) and first cause. They aren't the same, albeit presumably a first cause would also be a necessary entity, noting that the whole concept of first cause is predicated on time being uni-linear and constant, which isn't necessarily the case.

So there can be plenty of entities that are both necessary within one context, but contingent within another.

But do the components self assemble, and if so from what?
I'm trying to think of a natural system which will still work if any of the components are removed. Since you say there are such things can you name one?

I'm thinking of 'prime' rather than 'first'. as I keep saying to you the argument from contingency is not dependent on time.
Im also thinking of vertical heirarchies of dependence not dependent on time.