Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[jeremyp]

But you cannot say that because there is actually no substantive 'other'.

If there's no "other", why are you claiming the Universe is composite?

[jeremyp]

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

Yes, that is a tricky question. Let's see if I can make a stab at it.

Here we go....

... I don't know.

Seems it was pretty simple after all.

[jeremyp]

What example closed loop would you say was analogous

It's pretty simple. Normal people don't need an analogy to understand it. But if you insist, what about a bicycle chain or a bracelet.

...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.

And a link in a bicycle chain is ultimately connected to itself. Where's the tautology?

[jeremyp]

"contingent on something other than itself" is a tautology.

So what you should have properly asked is
What makes you think the universe is contingent?

It is a composite dependent on it's existence on it's component parts.
No components no universe.


So it is contingent not because of the contingency of it's parts
But because it depends on the existence of it's parts.

Seems to me that, if the Universe is dependent only on its component parts and its component parts are dependent only on the Universe, then the Universe is not contingent.

And that means we don't need to posit a god.

Your welcome.

His welcome? What about his welcome?

[jeremyp]

A tautology is a statement that says the same thing twice, in different words. This doesn't, and thus is not a tautology.

Yes it is actually. "contingent" means "dependent on something other than itself" Every word after "contingent" was an unnecessary redundancy. "Contingent on itself" is an oxymoron. 

[SteveH]

There's no reason that I can see that makes it invalid.

[Nearly Sane]

There's no reason that I can see that makes it invalid.

  So what? You've made a positive claim that it is valid. Can you show what justifies that statement?

[SteveH]

You're just being silly now.

[Nearly Sane]

You're just being silly now.

No. This is basic stuff. You've made a positive claim that it is a valid question. You need to justify that claim. You appear not to be able to and when challenged on it make a personal attack.

Let's say I had stated it was an invalid question, and someone had asked me to show that it was invalid. Following that I had then asked them to show why it was valid, and they replied that they hadn't said that it was they just wanted me to justify my claim that it was invalid. If I then said that I was unable to think of a reason that it was not invalid, and they said that wasn't a justification that it was actually invalid, would they just be being silly?

[Stranger]

"contingent on something other than itself" is a tautology.

No it isn't. Not according to you anyway.

It is a composite dependent on it's existence on it's component parts.
No components no universe.

And no universe, no parts. So the parts are contingent on the whole and we need nothing else.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

"contingent on something other than itself" is a tautology.

Then I’ll add “tautology” to the various words you don’t understand. A tautology is saying the same thing more than once with different words – “unfilled vacancies” for example. Here though what’s actually being said is that the fact of the universe being contingent on its parts (ie it exists only in the form it has because of the parts of which it consists) does not imply that the universe must also exist because something else caused to be.

This shouldn’t be difficult to grasp.

So what you should have properly asked is
What makes you think the universe is contingent?

No, the “proper" question remains as I put it: what makes you think the universe is contingent on something other than itself (ie, “God”)? That after is your claim.

It is a composite dependent on it's existence on it's component parts.
No components no universe.

OK…

So it is contingent not because of the contingency of it's parts
But because it depends on the existence of it's parts.

Which still says nothing about why you think it’s contingent on something other than itself (ie the sum of its parts).

Your welcome.

For what? You’re still running away from answering the question.

[SteveH]

I pointed out Walt's mistake about tautology yesterday, but the post seems to have disappeared. Has it been removed?

[Nearly Sane]

I pointed out Walt's mistake about tautology yesterday, but the post seems to have disappeared. Has it been removed?

Reply 597, still there

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Then I’ll add “tautology” to the various words you don’t understand. A tautology is saying the same thing more than once with different words – “unfilled vacancies” for example. Here though what’s actually being said is that the fact of the universe being contingent on its parts (ie it exists only in the form it has because of the parts of which it consists) does not imply that the universe must also exist because something else caused to be.

This shouldn’t be difficult to grasp.

No, the “proper" question remains as I put it: what makes you think the universe is contingent on something other than itself (ie, “God”)? That after is your claim.

OK…

Which still says nothing about why you think it’s contingent on something other than itself (ie the sum of its parts).

For what? You’re still running away from answering the question.

If you say something is contingent on x and x is contingent then given the definition of contingency we have to ask what it is it is contingent on. Deviation from that is the running away bit Hillside.

Stating that x gives existence to y which gives existence to x just conjure stuff but you know this having projected the magic onto me.

Regarding the fallacy of composition You proposed the universe was merely the sum of it's contingent parts.

You the said I said the universe was contingent because parts of it were. Not so Hillside
 The universe you proposed then is contingent not because of the contingency of its parts but because, as you propose it is the sum of parts.

So much for the Hillside argument and context.

What I say is show me something that isn't contingent and is responsible for its own being.

The default position is everything ever observed is contingent. So I  could play your game.

Stop trying then to shift the burden of proof, stop running away, exile yourself to the grounds of your estate and eat grass as a penance

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

There's no reason that I can see that makes it invalid.

It's invalid for several reasons.

First, "Why..." implies purpose whereas asking instead how it is that the universe exists removes that unwarranted a priori implication.

Second, built in to the question is the assumption that the universe’s existence is somehow less likely than its non-existence. You could equally ask why there isn’t nothing rather than something. 

Third, the question is addressed to atheists specifically. The question has nothing to do with atheism though, which is just the absence of belief in god(s). Asking atheists this question implies that the theistic explanation “god” is somehow legitimate or plausible, which is isn’t for the reasons that have been explained exhaustively here. Equally a-fairyists don’t have to explain how teeth disappear at might from under pillows either – they just need to find the putative explanation “Tooth Fairy” to be implausible.

[Stranger]

If you say something is contingent on x and x is contingent then given the definition of contingency we have to ask what it is it is contingent on. Deviation from that is the running away bit Hillside.

Stating that x gives existence to y which gives existence to x just conjure stuff but you know this having projected the magic onto me.

And we are still waiting for you to actually address the point that you said the universe was contingent on its parts but cannot point to anything its parts are contingent on except the whole universe.

Just making general, justification-free, assertions claims that we can't do that sort of thing is running away.

Come on Vlad, what is the universe contingent on outside of itself?

What I say is show me something that isn't contingent and is responsible for its own being.

The universe. Show me why that can't be the case.

Stop trying then to shift the burden of proof, stop running away...

You're the one running.

I've lost count of how often I've raised the above points and all you do is run away!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

SteveH,

It's invalid for several reasons.

First, "Why..." implies purpose whereas asking instead how it is that the universe exists removes that unwarranted a priori implication.

Second, built in to the question is the assumption that the universe’s existence is somehow less likely than its non-existence. You could equally ask why there isn’t nothing rather than something. 

Third, the question is addressed to atheists specifically. The question has nothing to do with atheism though, which is just the absence of belief in god(s). Asking atheists this question implies that the theistic explanation “god” is somehow legitimate or plausible, which is isn’t for the reasons that have been explained exhaustively here. Equally a-fairyists don’t have to explain how teeth disappear at might from under pillows either – they just need to find the putative explanation “Tooth Fairy” to be implausible.

Why and how are colloquially and practically.interchangeble

If you don't like why I offer "what is the reason?"

Not sure about "How it is that" though Hillside but not sure if that's because it's you proposing it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If you say something is contingent on x and x is contingent then given the definition of contingency we have to ask what it is it is contingent on. Deviation from that is the running away bit Hillside.

Incoherent. What are you even trying to say here? The NHS is “contingent” on having nurses – ie, it couldn’t function without them; nurses are “contingent” on the NHS (ie, they wouldn’t be hired if there was no NHS). That’s not a tautology though, which is the mistake you made. 

Stating that x gives existence to y which gives existence to x just conjure stuff but you know this having projected the magic onto me.

It's not “gives existence” to as in “causes”, it’s just a statement that the fact of a universe made of its composite parts does not imply that the universe must also be contingent on something other than itself – you know, the assertion you keep running away from justifying.

Regarding the fallacy of composition You proposed the universe was merely the sum of it's contingent parts.

So it appears, yes.

You the said I said the universe was contingent because parts of it were.

No I didn’t. I said that the universe is “contingent” inasmuch as it wouldn’t exist (either at all or in its current form) without the parts of which it consists. Nothing more, nothing less. 

Not so Hillside
 The universe you proposed then is contingent not because of the contingency of its parts but because, as you propose it is the sum of parts.

So much for the Hillside argument and context.

Did this gibberish mean something in your head when you typed it?

What I say is show me something that isn't contingent and is responsible for its own being.

Well, according to you, "God". I have no reason to think that "the universe" isn't such a something in any case, and certainly no non-fallacious reason that you've managed to offer. 

The default position is everything ever observed is contingent. So I  could play your game.

Not necessarily – we don’t know whether “true” randomness happens at the quantum level – but for the sake of argument let’s say that everything we’ve observed in the universe is contingent on antecedent things. 

So, how then do you jump from that to “therefore the universe itself must be contingent on its antecedent things" (ie, "God") without falling into the fallacy of composition again?

Stop trying then to shift the burden of proof, stop running away, exile yourself to the grounds of your estate and eat grass as a penance

Simply accusing others without grounds of your own behaviours if pathetic. And dishonest.

Yet again: WHY DO YOU THINK THE UNIVERSE AS AN ENTITY MUST BE CONTINGENT ON SOMETHING OTHER THAN ITSELF?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Why and how are colloquially and practically.interchangeble

So you think "why did Jack the Ripper murder his victims?" and "how did Jack the Ripper murder his victims?" are "colloquially and practically interchangeble" (sic)?

Really?

[SteveH]

Again can you show why it's valid?

Your obsession with the validity of my question is beginning to look like evasion. In what does the validity of a question consist? If I knew, I'd be able to tell you why it's a valid question, but I don't. Common sense tells me that it's a reasonable question to ask.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Incoherent. What are you even trying to say here? The NHS is “contingent” on having nurses – ie, it couldn’t function without them; nurses are “contingent” on the NHS (ie, they wouldn’t be hired if there was no NHS). That’s not a tautology though, which is the mistake you made. 

It's not “gives existence” to as in “causes”, it’s just a statement that the fact of a universe made of its composite parts does not imply that the universe must also be contingent on something other than itself – you know, the assertion you keep running away from justifying.

So it appears, yes.

No I didn’t. I said that the universe is “contingent” inasmuch as it wouldn’t exist (either at all or in its current form) without the parts of which it consists. Nothing more, nothing less. 

Did this gibberish mean something in your head when you typed it?

Well, according to you, "God". I have no reason to think that "the universe" isn't such a something in any case, and certainly no non-fallacious reason that you've managed to offer. 

Not necessarily – we don’t know whether “true” randomness happens at the quantum level – but for the sake of argument let’s say that everything we’ve observed in the universe is contingent on antecedent things. 

So, how then do you jump from that to “therefore the universe itself must be contingent on its antecedent things" (ie, "God") without falling into the fallacy of composition again?

Simply accusing others without grounds of your own behaviours if pathetic. And dishonest.

Yet again: WHY DO YOU THINK THE UNIVERSE AS AN ENTITY MUST BE CONTINGENT ON SOMETHING OTHER THAN ITSELF?

once more with gusto.

You cannot be contingent on yourself Hillside. Find out the meaning of contingency and if you find more than one meaning
Don't cherrypick.

[SteveH]

Reply 597, still there

So it is. My mistake.

[Nearly Sane]

Your obsession with the validity of my question is beginning to look like evasion. In what does the validity of a question consist? If I knew, I'd be able to tell you why it's a valid question, but I don't. Common sense tells me that it's a reasonable question to ask.

Trifle bizarre to say that asking a question is evasion but refusing to answer it is fine.

 So you said it's a valid question but you don't think that 'validity' consists of anything? Common sense tells lots of people the earth is flat. It's not a justification.


Since you've made a claim but seem unable even to define it, ok let me help you out.


The question 'how long to green ideas sleep furiously for?' Is not a valid question as it makes no sense but is grammatically ok.

The question 'how do elephants fly?' is not a valid question because though the ideas make sense, they aren't true.

Why questions imply a causal reason. It may not be that that applies in all questions.

'Why is there something rather than nothing?'posits that nothing is a possible state. I'm not even sure it's a coherent one since it would end up with the concept that 'nothing is' which implies that nothing is something which makes no sense.

But hey, I'm not blessed with 'common sense'.

[Nearly Sane]

Vlad,

So you think "why did Jack the Ripper murder his victims?" and "how did Jack the Ripper murder his victims?" are "colloquially and practically interchangeble" (sic)?

Really?

This may help Vlad out.

https://langeek.co/en/grammar/course/845/how-vs-why

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Trifle bizarre to say that asking a question is evasion but refusing to answer it is fine.

 So you said it's a valid question but you don't think that 'validity' consists of anything? Common sense tells lots of people the earth is flat. It's not a justification.


Since you've made a claim but seem unable even to define it, ok let me help you out.


The question 'how long to green ideas sleep furiously for?' Is not a valid question as it makes no sense but is grammatically ok.

The question 'how do elephants fly?' is not a valid question because though the ideas make sense, they aren't true.

Why questions imply a causal reason. It may not be that that applies in all questions.

'Why is there something rather than nothing?'posits that nothing is a possible state. I'm not even sure it's a coherent one since it would end up with the concept that 'nothing is' which implies that nothing is something which makes no sense.

But hey, I'm not blessed with 'common sense'.

Nearly Sane. We may have to be agnostic about nothing but we know that non existence is a thing.......unless you want to start arguing an afterlife