Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Now you're not asking yourself the question you accused me of not asking. What are the things that make up the universe contingent on? Answer: the universe. What is the universe contingent on? You've already told us: its parts.

So if it is contingent and the universe is contingent what are they contingent on.

Your problem is that the collection of things is the same thing as the universe in other words you have a circular argument.
Not only that you have the Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers of Circular arguments.

I think you need to mull Strangee.

[jeremyp]

So if it is contingent and the universe is contingent what are they contingent on.

I think that was clear: each other.

[Stranger]

So if it is contingent and the universe is contingent what are they contingent on.

Here's a novel idea: why don't you try reading a post before 'answering' it?

Your problem is that the collection of things is the same thing as the universe...

And..........?

...in other words you have a circular argument.

Nothing circular about it. Where have I assumed a conclusion?

What is it about the universe that you think is contingent on anything apart from the universe?

[jeremyp]

you have a circular argument.

You are conflating the argument with the thing it is arguing about.

If we have a "chain of contingency", as I see it there are three possibilities.

• It has a beginning
• It continues indefinitely
• It is a closed loop

So far, I have seen no argument from you that rules out the second two possibilities.

I have also seen no argument from you that the beginning of the chain in the first possibility is your god.

Note that, none of the three possibilities rules out your god. It could appear somewhere within the chain, not necessarily at the beginning with option 1. What rules out the possibility of your god is the incoherence of Christian doctrine.

[SteveH]

All this guff reminds me of something Bertrand Russell once said, regarding, I think, the first cause argument: what is true of everything in the universe is not necessarily true of the universe itself. If I remember correctly, he concluded by saying "the universe just is, and that's all". i think it was in his famous radio debate with a Catholic priest whose name I forget.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think that was clear: each other.

But you cannot say that because there is actually no substantive 'other'. You are arguing both an itself...one entity and absurdly two entities one and the other simultaneously.

While denying it in God.

Jeremy....you need to mull things over.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

All this guff reminds me of something Bertrand Russell once said, regarding, I think, the first cause argument: what is true of everything in the universe is not necessarily true of the universe itself. If I remember correctly, he concluded by saying "the universe just is, and that's all". i think it was in his famous radio debate with a Catholic priest whose name I forget.

it's all right thinking the universe just is but that just invites the question why the universe just isn't.

A reason for the universe just doesn't seem commensurate with Modern Atheism as practiced.

[Stranger]

But you cannot say that because there is actually no substantive 'other'. You are arguing both an itself...one entity and absurdly two entities one and the other simultaneously.

Gibberish.   

What are you even trying to say here? Do I need to remind you again that you started this when you said (#529): "A composite entity cannot be a necessary being because it is contingent on it's parts."

And you haven't answered my question: what is it about the universe that you think is contingent on anything apart from the universe?

[SteveH]

it's all right thinking the universe just is but that just invites the question why the universe just isn't.

A reason for the universe just doesn't seem commensurate with Modern Atheism as practiced.

I agree that "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is a valid question that atheists need to answer.

[Stranger]

it's all right thinking the universe just is but that just invites the question why the universe just isn't.

A question one could just as easily ask about a God. But then we just get "but God is magic (necessary)".

A reason for the universe just doesn't seem commensurate with Modern Atheism as practiced.

Why not (even if there is a reason for it)? There are many scientific hypotheses that don't require a God. Many made up non-God fairy tales too.

[Stranger]

I agree that "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is a valid question that atheists need to answer.

Since a God doesn't answer this question, why atheists in particular? Why does anybody need to answer it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A question one could just as easily ask about a God. But then we just get "but God is magic (necessary)".

Why not (even if there is a reason for it)? There are many scientific hypotheses that don't require a God. Many made up non-God fairy tales too.

God is proposed as the reason for something rather than nothing and the universe is the something...or collection of somethings.

One could also say God is the reason for physics.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Since a God doesn't answer this question, why atheists in particular? Why does anybody need to answer

Because the answer might not agree with Russell's assertion of brute fact which is a lame excuse for merely suspending the principle of sufficient reason when it suits.

[Stranger]

God is proposed as the reason for something rather than nothing...

If a God exists, it's a something. So it's part of the 'problem', not an answer to it.

One could also say God is the reason for physics.

One could say the moon is made of cheese.   

Because the answer might not agree with Russell's assertion of brute fact...

Might not agree with theistic non-answers and doublethink either. 

...which is a lame excuse for merely suspending the principle of sufficient reason when it suits.

The principle of sufficient reason doesn't appear to play nicely with quantum mechanics even.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are conflating the argument with the thing it is arguing about.

If we have a "chain of contingency", as I see it there are three possibilities.

• It has a beginning
• It continues indefinitely
• It is a closed loop

So far, I have seen no argument from you that rules out the second two possibilities.

I have also seen no argument from you that the beginning of the chain in the first possibility is your god.

Note that, none of the three possibilities rules out your god. It could appear somewhere within the chain, not necessarily at the beginning with option 1. What rules out the possibility of your god is the incoherence of Christian doctrine.

What example closed loop would you say was analogous...because so far if the universe was a closed loop it would mean that Jeremy P only exists  because Jeremy P exists and that is a tautology.

[Outrider]

What example closed loop would you say was analogous...because so far if the universe was a closed loop it would mean that Jeremy P only exists  because Jeremy P exists and that is a tautology.

Whereas 'everything has a cause' therefore 'god is the uncaused cause' is both special pleading and an oxymoron at the same time. It's almost like we're not cerebrally equipped to intuit this stuff...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Whereas 'everything has a cause' therefore 'god is the uncaused cause' is both special pleading and an oxymoron at the same time. It's almost like we're not cerebrally equipped to intuit this stuff...

O.

If a God exists, it's a something. So it's part of the 'problem', not an answer to it.

One could say the moon is made of cheese.   

Might not agree with theistic non-answers and doublethink either. 

The principle of sufficient reason doesn't appear to play nicely with quantum mechanics even.

I am not so much talking about Caroll's observation that creation is not fundamental but rather the to suit and arbitrary suspension of the principle in the pursuit of atheism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Whereas 'everything has a cause' therefore 'god is the uncaused cause' is both special pleading and an oxymoron at the same time. It's almost like we're not cerebrally equipped to intuit this stuff...

O.

I'm not sure any philosopher put it like that. Dawkin's claimed it was Aquinas(falsely I understand) but he is no philosopher.

What was said in the Kalam Cosmological Argument was Everything that has a beginning has a cause.

You're welcome.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If a God exists, it's a something. So it's part of the 'problem', not an answer to it.

Not if the something is the complete ensemble of contingent things aka the universe

[Stranger]

I am not so much talking about Caroll's observation that creation is not fundamental but rather the to suit and arbitrary suspension of the principle in the pursuit of atheism.

It's really rather hilarious to see your 'arguments' get crushed one by one only for you to set off in another direction while trying to ignore what you said before.

Since theism offers no answer to the problem of something rather than nothing, your reference to atheism is spurious.

I'm also still waiting for an answer to my question: what is it about the universe that you think is contingent on anything apart from the universe?

[Stranger]

If a God exists, it's a something. So it's part of the 'problem', not an answer to it.

Not if the something is the complete ensemble of contingent things aka the universe

That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense as an answer to what I said.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not if the something is the complete ensemble of contingent things aka the universe


That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense as an answer to what I said.   

But it's highly vital in the question of asserting that the universe just is and that's the end to it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's really rather hilarious to see your 'arguments' get crushed one by one only for you to set off in another direction while trying to ignore what you said before.

Since theism offers no answer to the problem of something rather than nothing, your reference to atheism is spurious.

I'm also still waiting for an answer to my question: what is it about the universe that you think is contingent on anything apart from the universe?

That clinches it.......you ARE pulling my plonker.

[Outrider]

What was said in the Kalam Cosmological Argument was Everything that has a beginning has a cause.

Which was it's first error, of course.

O.

[Stranger]

What was said in the Kalam Cosmological Argument was Everything that has a beginning has a cause.

Kalam argument was "Everything that begins to exist has a cause." Which doesn't apply to the whole space-time.

But it's highly vital in the question of asserting that the universe just is and that's the end to it.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question: what is it about the universe that you think is contingent on anything apart from the universe?

And I'm not asserting that it "just is" (that was Russell, apparently). Perhaps it is, perhaps not. The point is that it doesn't appear to be contingent on anything else and making up some God doesn't help with the something rather than nothing question.

That clinches it.......you ARE pulling my plonker.

Looks more like you're playing with yourself, quite frankly.