Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This may help Vlad out.

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

It helps you out.

My dictionary tells me it means Purpose or reason.

[Nearly Sane]

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

That there is no 23 bus in my siight currently is not tge equivalent of there being nothing in your question.

[Nearly Sane]

It helps you out.

My dictionary tells me it means Purpose or reason.

   Exactly.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

   Exactly.

So what's your problem?

[Nearly Sane]

So what's your problem?

I don't have one with the meaning of why. You do with justufying the question.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That there is no 23 bus in my siight currently is not tge equivalent of there being nothing in your question.

Non existence is non existence nearly Sane. So if it is the lot of contingent things and the universe is but the sum of contingent things.................

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't have one with the meaning of why. You do with justufying the question.

What's wrong with it?

[Nearly Sane]

Non existence is non existence nearly Sane. So if it is the lot of contingent things and the universe is but the sum of contingent things.................

So your position is that the absence of the number 23 bus being in my sight currently is the equivalent of there being absolute nothing. Then the question 'why is there something rather than nothing?' can be rephrased as 'Why is there something rather than no number 23 bus in Nearly Sane's sight currently?'

[Nearly Sane]

What's wrong with it?

It assumes a purpose or reason. You haven't shown that is required.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It assumes a purpose or reason. You haven't shown that is required.

I think contingency and necessity have been presented here with atheists presenting us with the definition of the universe as the sum of contingent things and the question is in line with the principle of sufficient reason. If then you wish to explain why and where the Principle should be suspended.....do tell us.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You cannot be contingent on yourself Hillside.

In the case of the universe, why not?

[Nearly Sane]

I think contingency and necessity have been presented here with atheists presenting us with the definition of the universe as the sum of contingent things and the question is in line with the principle of sufficient reason. If then you wish to explain why and where the Principle should be suspended.....do tell us.

  I think you're making a category error, and assuming that a day to day assumption of cause and effect can be applied without justification  to absolutes.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,
 

In the case of the universe, why not? The definition of contingent, Hillside.

Maybe you try arguing that it is the necessary being instead of definition diddling....Grow up.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

  I think you're making a category error, and assuming that a day to day assumption of cause and effect can be applied without justification  to absolutes.

Not sure what you are trying to say here.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Maybe you try arguing that it is the necessary being instead of definition diddling....Grow up.

Shifting the burden of proof (again) isn't helping you here. It's your assertion that the universe must be contingent on something other than itself (ie, other than the sum of its parts). I'm merely asking you to justify your claim with a non-fallacious argument – ie, without relying on the fallacy of composition.

So far at least you haven't even tried to do that. Should I take it then that you have no such argument, or that you do have it but you want to keep it a secret? 

[Stranger]

Maybe you try arguing that it is the necessary being instead of definition diddling....Grow up.

You keep telling us the universe can't be magically necessary because the whole thing is contingent on its parts but you won't say where there is any contingency on anything else.

Grow the fuck up yourself and stop running away from the question.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Shifting the burden of proof (again) isn't helping you here. It's your assertion that the universe must be contingent on something other than itself (ie, other than the sum of its parts). I'm merely asking you to justify your claim with a non-fallacious argument – ie, without relying on the fallacy of composition.

So far at least you haven't even tried to do that. Should I take it then that you have no such argument, or that you do have it but you want to keep it a secret?

This isn't about shifting the burden Hillside
This is about you either not knowing or liking the meaning of the word contingent.

[Nearly Sane]

Not sure what you are trying to say here.

To take a well worn example on here, saying that we touch the keyboard when we type makes sense in day to day terms. That we don't only becomes of significance when we are talking on a different level. Similarly here, with cause and effect.

We've covered this multiple times before, rather like the history being methodologically naturalist stuff, which you appeared to have completely forgotten. Are you ok?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You keep telling us the universe can't be magically necessary because the whole thing is contingent on its parts but you won't say where there is any contingency on anything else.

Grow the fuck up yourself and stop running away from the question.

You can't be contingent on yourself because of the very definition of the word contingent, end of.

[Stranger]

This isn't about shifting the burden Hillside
This is about you either not knowing or liking the meaning of the word contingent.

No, it's about you shamelessly running away from a simple question:

What is it about the universe that is contingent on anything that isn't a part of the universe or the universe itself?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

This isn't about shifting the burden Hillside

Yes it is. You said “Maybe you try arguing that it is the necessary being instead of definition diddling....Grow up.”. I don’t have to argue anything though. All I have to do is to ask you why you think the universe must be contingent on something other than itself.

That you cannot or will not answer that tells us that you can't justify your claim with a non-fallacious argument. Why then should anyone take that unqualified assertion seriously?
 

This is about you either not knowing or liking the meaning of the word contingent.

No it isn’t. I know what it means, and I neither like nor dislike it. That’s why I’m inviting you finally to stop ducking and diving and instead to tell us why you think the universe must be contingent on something other than itself.

Why so coy?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You can't be contingent on yourself because of the very definition of the word contingent, end of.

Wrong again. Something can be "contingent on" its component parts. You though then overreach into a claim that that "something" must also be contingent on something else.

I don't know why you think that and you continue not to tell us.   

[Stranger]

You can't be contingent on yourself because of the very definition of the word contingent, end of.

More childish foot-stamping. 

The definition of a word is irrelevant. The universe does not appear to require anything else for its existence. You can call that whatever the hell you like.

You've applied the word 'contingent' to the universe, because you claim it's contingent on its parts, so what do you think they are 'contingent' on that has to be something apart from the universe?

Reconciling the language you've chosen to use, is not anybody's problem but yours.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

More childish foot-stamping. 

The definition of a word is irrelevant. The universe does not appear to require anything else for its existence. You can call that whatever the hell you like.

Wrong. In terms of appearance, the only thing which is observed is contingency.If that changes let us know.

You've applied the word 'contingent' to the universe, because you claim it's contingent on its parts, so what do you think they are 'contingent' on that has to be something apart from the universe?

Reconciling the language you've chosen to use, is not anybody's problem but yours.

A car is dependent on parts. But the parts are not  made by the car, that would be absurd. The parts were premanufactured as were the machines that premanufactured them. Natural processes made the materials and so we end up with matter so what made that?

If something is independent of everything else for it's existence  then it is said to exist necessarily.



Substitute the word universe for car and I think you will see why  the universe doesn't  make it's parts.

[Stranger]

A car is dependent on parts. But the parts are not  made by the car, that would be absurd. The parts were premanufactured as were the machines that premanufactured them. Natural processes made the materials and so we end up with matter so what made that?

If something is independent of everything else for it's existence  then it is said to exist necessarily.



Substitute the word universe for car and I think you will see why  the universe doesn't  make it's parts

Switching to an obviously false analogy is still running away from answering the question. The parts of the universe cannot possibly exist without the universe, so a car is quite clearly nothing like the universe in this respect.

What is it about the universe that is contingent on anything that isn't a part of the universe or the universe itself?