Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

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

No necessarily true as there are hints at least that some quantum phenomena may not be determinative. Nonetheless, let’s agree for now that everything observed so far within “the universe” has been contingent in character.

Now then – how do you propose to jump straight from “stuff in the universe is contingent on other stuff in the universe” to “therefore the universe is contingent on something other than itself” without collapsing again into the fallacy of composition?

And if you continue to refuse to tell us that, won’t you at least tell us why you won’t tell us that?

Again: why so coy?

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?

Been a while since someone attempted the Paley’s watch fallacy. Well done:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy

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

And you think the universe itself cannot exist “necessarily” why exactly?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

special pleading....Don't be a silly pleader.
Everything depends on the universe and the universe depends on everything is just deepity and shows ignorance or dislike of the term contingency.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No necessarily true as there are hints at least that some quantum phenomena may not be determinative. Nonetheless, let’s agree for now that everything observed so far within “the universe” has been contingent in character.

Now then – how do you propose to jump straight from “stuff in the universe is contingent on other stuff in the universe” to “therefore the universe is contingent on something other than itself” without collapsing again into the fallacy of composition?

And if you continue to refuse to tell us that, won’t you at least tell us why you won’t tell us that?

Again: why so coy?

Been a while since someone attempted the Paley’s watch fallacy. Well done:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy

And you think the universe itself cannot exist “necessarily” why exactly?

I don't need to make the jump.
The universe is contingent not because it's parts are but because it has parts.

[Stranger]

special pleading....Don't be a silly pleader.

How is it special pleading?

The universe is not like a car in the relevant way.

How about you actually answer the question?

Everything depends on the universe and the universe depends on everything is just deepity and shows ignorance or dislike of the term contingency.

I don't care about the term. I'm interested in the reality, not the words you like to play silly games with. You are making a claim that the universe must be dependant on something else. Where the is the first hint of reasoning or evidence to support that claim?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

special pleading....Don't be a silly pleader.

What special pleading do you think you’ve identified? Stranger isn’t claiming that the universe is necessarily its own explanation – he’s just inviting you to justify your assertion that it isn't. So far you’ve danced all around that but have failed entirely to justify your claim. And we both know why that is don’t we – yes, at some dimly aware level you grasp that the fallacy of composition awaits you immediately you essay “observed stuff in the universe contingent, therefore universe contingent” don’t you even though that's all you have in the locker.   

Everything depends on the universe and the universe depends on everything is just despite and shows ignorance or dislike of the term contingency.

Gibberish, but in any case we’ve found the actual special pleading here now haven’t we? Apparently your notion “god” precisely is allowed to be “necessary”, presumably by means of your “because he’s magic inne?” defence.

Hmmm…   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

What special pleading do you think you’ve identified? Stranger isn’t claiming that the universe is necessarily its own explanation – he’s just inviting you to justify your assertion that it isn't. So far you’ve danced all around that but have failed entirely to justify your claim. And we both know why that is don’t we – yes, at some dimly aware level you grasp that the fallacy of composition awaits you immediately you essay “observed stuff in the universe contingent, therefore universe contingent” don’t you even though that's all you have in the locker.   

Gibberish, but in any case we’ve found the actual special pleading here now haven’t we? Apparently your notion “god” precisely is allowed to be “necessary”, presumably by means of your “because he’s magic inne?” defence.

Hmmm…

zero special pleading. Find out the meaning of contingency and stop the whataboutery.

[Stranger]

The universe is contingent not because it's parts are but because it has parts.

The universe and its parts are inseparable because the parts cannot exist without the whole. Leaving aside your absurd obsession with the terminology, what is it about the universe that depends on anything else?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I don't need to make the jump.

Yes you do. It's your claim that the universe is contingent on something other than itself, so it's your job to justify your claim.

The universe is contingent not because it's parts are but because it has parts.

Which tell you nothing at all about whether it must also be contingent on something other than itself - which remains your unargued assertion remember?

[Stranger]

zero special pleading. Find out the meaning of contingency and stop the whataboutery.

  You can't make an argument about reality based solely on the words you've chosen to apply to it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

zero special pleading. Find out the meaning of contingency and stop the whataboutery.

You can't just straw man your way out of the hole you've dug for yourself. Once again: WHY DO YOU THINK THE OBSERVATION OF CONTINGENT STUFF IN THE UNIVERSE IMPLIES THAT THE UNIVERSE MUST ALSO BE CONTINGENT ON SOMETHING OTHER THAN ITSELF?

Are you determined to keep the answer a secret, or do you just not have one?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You can't just straw man your way out of the hole you've dug for yourself. Once again: WHY DO YOU THINK THE OBSERVATION OF CONTINGENT STUFF IN THE UNIVERSE IMPLIES THAT THE UNIVERSE MUST ALSO BE CONTINGENT ON SOMETHING OTHER THAN ITSELF?

Are you determined to keep the answer a secret, or do you just not have one?

You cannot be contingent on yourself. Stop wishing it was even a thing.

You are treating this forum like a pissoir or spittoon.
Excuse me if I don't stick around as you defecate.

[jeremyp]

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?

Context is everything. This why/how bullshit is just bullshit, so let's stop doing it.

If I ask "why does the Earth orbit the Sun?" I'm not presupposing some purpose by my use of the word "why"? I'm not looking for the Earth's motive to keep going round, unlike with the Jack the Ripper question

[Stranger]

You cannot be contingent on yourself. Stop wishing it was even a thing.

Stop running away from the question! Forget your obsession with contingency, just provide an argument that the universe requires something else to exist.

Surely you've got something better than arbitrarily slapping the label 'contingent' on it and then claiming it can't be contingent on itself. I mean, that would be childish and ridiculous, wouldn't it?

Look, just fill in this:

Premises:

• ...
• ...
  ...

Deduction steps:

• ...
• ...
  ...

Conclusion: therefore the universe requires something else to exists.

[jeremyp]

The universe is contingent not because it's parts are but because it has parts.

Just like your god with its three parts.

[jeremyp]

You cannot be contingent on yourself. Stop wishing it was even a thing.

Stop avoiding the question. You're trying to escape on a technicality.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stop running away from the question! Forget your obsession with contingency, just provide an argument that the universe requires something else to exist.

Surely you've got something better than arbitrarily slapping the label 'contingent' on it and then claiming it can't be contingent on itself. I mean, that would be childish and ridiculous, wouldn't it?

Look, just fill in this:

Premises:

• ...
• ...
  ...

Deduction steps:

• ...
• ...
  ...

Conclusion: therefore the universe requires something else to exists.

I've answered that question.
If the universe has parts it is contingent
Since we can ask why those parts and why that arrangement.
You cannot be contingent on yourself. That is just misuse and misunderstanding.
If you therefore exist independently you are a necessary entity.

Nothing observed so far is a Necessary entity......and there's the end to it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Context is everything. This why/how bullshit is just bullshit, so let's stop doing it.

If I ask "why does the Earth orbit the Sun?" I'm not presupposing some purpose by my use of the word "why"? I'm not looking for the Earth's motive to keep going round, unlike with the Jack the Ripper question

Questions about purpose are teleological questions.
The argument from contingency is not a teleological argument.
Hillside has wrongly said I am making Paley's argument. I'm not. I'm  not saying here is a complex structured thing it must have been made. I'm saying why is it here at all.

Why this rather than nothing.

Your options are just is....with it's attendant claim of necessity
or necessity which you would need to justify imo

[Stranger]

I've answered that question.

No, you have not.

If the universe has parts it is contingent
Since we can ask why those parts and why that arrangement.

Just like we could ask that of your composite God. Leaving that aside for the moment, you appear to have made an arbitrary choice to label anything with parts 'contingent'.

You cannot be contingent on yourself. That is just misuse and misunderstanding.

Why not? I mean logically, not just resorting to a dictionary definition of 'contingent' that was just a word you've chosen to use. Something has parts, why does that automatically mean that it depends on anything else?

Where is the logic that goes from 'has parts' to 'depends on something else'?

If you therefore exist independently you are a necessary entity.

I really couldn't care less about labels, but it would help if you could at least be consistent about them. Is a 'necessary entity' just something with no external dependency (brute fact) or does it need to cause a contradiction if it didn't exist or was different (logically incoherent)?

Nothing observed so far is a Necessary entity......and there's the end to it.

Why can't the universe 'exist independently'? Nothing you've said answers that question. And that's before we get to your shameless double standard with respect to your three-part God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, you have not.

Just like we could ask that of your composite God. Leaving that aside for the moment, you appear to have made an arbitrary choice to label anything with parts 'contingent'.

Why not? I mean logically, not just resorting to a dictionary definition of 'contingent' that was just a word you've chosen to use. Something has parts, why does that automatically mean that it depends on anything else?

Where is the logic that goes from 'has parts' to 'depends on something else'?

I really couldn't care less about labels, but it would help if you could at least be consistent about them. Is a 'necessary entity' just something with no external dependency (brute fact) or does it need to cause a contradiction if it didn't exist or was different (logically incoherent)?

Why can't the universe 'exist independently'? Nothing you've said answers that question. And that's before we get to your shameless double standard with respect to your three-part God.

There is existing independently eg adult children living apart from there parents... but without parents they would not exist.

Your question is why can't the universe be a necessary entity.
Answer, it has parts.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, you have not.

Just like we could ask that of your composite God. Leaving that aside for the moment, you appear to have made an arbitrary choice to label anything with parts 'contingent'.

Why not? I mean logically, not just resorting to a dictionary definition of 'contingent' that was just a word you've chosen to use. Something has parts, why does that automatically mean that it depends on anything else?

Where is the logic that goes from 'has parts' to 'depends on something else'?

I really couldn't care less about labels, but it would help if you could at least be consistent about them. Is a 'necessary entity' just something with no external dependency (brute fact) or does it need to cause a contradiction if it didn't exist or was different (logically incoherent)?

Why can't the universe 'exist independently'? Nothing you've said answers that question. And that's before we get to your shameless double standard with respect to your three-part God.

You do need to care about labels and definitions though or at least articulate your ideas better.

You and Hillside I fear are frightened to be wrong or seen to be wrong.

[Stranger]

You do need to care about labels and definitions though or at least articulate your ideas better.

So you cannot answer any of my questions and are admitting defeat....?

If you properly define your terms and use them consistently, that's fine. What you can't do, and what you seem to be shamelessly trying to do, is to apply a label in one sense: 'contingent' because it has parts, and then try to use another sense: 'contingent' because it depends of something else, to draw a conclusion.

What you're doing is akin to calling a fur rug a cat because it has fur and then claiming it walks on four legs because it's a cat.

That's not an argument. It's either dimwittery or a blatant attempt at hiding your inability to make a real logical case.   

[Nearly Sane]

Context is everything. This why/how bullshit is just bullshit, so let's stop doing it.

If I ask "why does the Earth orbit the Sun?" I'm not presupposing some purpose by my use of the word "why"? I'm not looking for the Earth's motive to keep going round, unlike with the Jack the Ripper question

In the main I agree, but it would seem incorrect to think that no one asks the question without attempting to use the deliberate purpose as an implication, specificLly because of the context.

Further, as in the, in some ways, similar 'what happened before the big bang?', it's either a deliberate, or ignorant, attempt to pull im explanatory processes that don't necessarily apply.

(For SteveH, if he reads this, the 'What happened before the Big Bang?' question may be an easier one to grasp the problem of validity. If the dimension of time is part of the big bang, before then becomes possibly inapplicable. Similarly the cause and effect that we assume in normal questions becomes possibly inapplicable when you have no concepts of dimensions to work with)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In the main I agree, but it would seem incorrect to think that no one asks the question without attempting to use the deliberate purpose as an implication, specificLly because of the context.

Further, as in the, in some ways, similar 'what happened before the big bang?', it's either a deliberate, or ignorant, attempt to pull im explanatory processes that don't necessarily apply.

(For SteveH, if he reads this, the 'What happened before the Big Bang?' question may be an easier one to grasp the problem of validity. If the dimension of time is part of the big bang, before then becomes possibly inapplicable. Similarly the cause and effect that we assume in normal questions becomes possibly inapplicable when you have no concepts of dimensions to work with)

Atheist: "Of course we cannot rely on cause and effect"
Theist:"There is then the uncaused cause"
Atheist" How fucking dare you?"

[Nearly Sane]

Atheist: "Of course we cannot rely on cause and effect"
Theist:"There is then the uncaused cause"
Atheist" How fucking dare you?"

Not my position.

[Stranger]

Atheist: "Of course we cannot rely on cause and effect"
Theist:"There is then the uncaused cause"
Atheist" How fucking dare you?"

Yet another innocent straw man gets dragged out and executed...