Vlad,
Sorry you are still trying to claim two exclusive propositions simultaneously...that the universe exists because of it's parts and the parts exist because of the universe.
I haven’t claimed any such thing. Nor has anyone else here. What I
have claimed though is that the universe consists of parts and so is a “composite” entity, and that those parts that are observed appear to be contingent (though not necessarily so). Straw manning that is dishonest – confine yourself to what’s actually being said.
If the universe is composite it is contingent and cannot be necessary. Another way of looking at your argument is to say it is circular.
No it isn’t, and just repeating the fallacy doesn’t make it less fallacious. Once again:
WHY do you think an entity that consists of contingent parts must therefore itself also be contingent on something else?
An analogy to the argument you are making would be
Vlad is saying that a football team made of the best football team would be the best football team.
Not even close. What it would be though would be if, say, a star player didn’t touch the ball except when s/he tapped in an 89th minute goal then you’d have a star team team too if none of them touched the ball until the 89th minute as well.
I'm not. I'm arguing it would be a team dependent on it's composition of players.
It would consist of its players, but it wouldn’t necessarily share the characteristics of those players.
And fundamentally the word composite entails contingency.
No it doesn’t. Why do you think that?
To be fair to you what you are trying to say I think is that there is something about the universe that doesn't change. That isn't dependent on it's existence on the things you say the universe is a composite of
You of all people – the Imperator of Incoherence, the Sultan of Semi-literacy, the Nabob of Nonsense, the Mandarin of Misunderstanding, the Patriarch of Piffle, the Satrap of Straw Men, the etc... – trying to tell
someone else what
they’re trying to say has just exploded a whole shelf of irony meters, but in any case what I’m
actually saying is that you cannot or will not make an argument to justify your claim that the fact of consisting of parts that are contingent means that the entity as a whole must also be contingent on something else.
Why won't you at least try to do that?