Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

As I see you’re still ducking and diving let’s try once more shall we?

1. You tell us that the universe is made of its parts.

2. You tell us that these parts are contingent on other parts (possibly but not necessarily true), but now tell us too that your “argument” (ie, unqualified assertion) does not rely on the parts themselves being contingent on each other.

3. You tell us that the fact of the universe being made of (and therefore contingent on) its parts means that the universe must also be contingent on something other than itself.

I have no idea how you managed to go from 2. To 3. without collapsing into the fallacy of composition again, and you seem determined not to tell us. I can only conclude therefore either:

1. You do have a justifying argument but you want to keep it a secret; or

2. You don’t have a justifying argument so resort instead to your usual playbook of straw men, ad homs, unqualified assertions etc.

My money’s on option 2., but you know what you have to do to prove me wrong (hey, you never know – there's a first time for everything).     

[jeremyp]

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.

You haven't told why something that has parts cannot be necessary.

[SteveH]

3. You tell us that the fact of the universe being made of (and therefore contingent on) its parts means that the universe must also be contingent on something other than itself.

I'm no expert, but isn't this the fallacy of composition, ie assuming that what is true of all the parts must be true of the whole? May not the universe be necessary, even though all its parts are contingent?

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

I'm no expert, but isn't this the fallacy of composition, ie assuming that what is true of all the parts must be true of the whole? May not the universe be necessary, even though all its parts are contingent?

Yes, it’s exactly the fallacy of composition. That’s all Vlad has, but he keeps twisting in the wind rather than admit as much.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

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

Bizarre.

So, to correct you yet again:

1. Atheist: I haven’t heard an argument for the claim “god(s)” that I can’t falsify, therefore I don’t believe in god(s). 

2. There is no 2.

All the other positions to which you arbitrarily attach the label “atheist” are just manifestations of your need for straw men to attack.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

SteveH,

Yes, it’s exactly the fallacy of composition. That’s all Vlad has, but he keeps twisting in the wind rather than admit as much.

No Hillside, it isn't.

The fallacy of composition would be to say the Universe is contingent because it's parts are contingent.

That isn't what's being argued.

What is argued is the Universe is contingent because it has parts.

Since you seem to want to deny  correction I take pleasure in pointing it out for others.

[Stranger]

What is argued is the Universe is contingent because it has parts.

So WHY is it contingent on anything else?

"The universe is contingent because it has parts, therefore it is contingent on something else" would be a massive non sequitur. So what the hell is you argument?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So WHY is it contingent on anything else?

"The universe is contingent because it has parts, therefore it is contingent on something else" would be a massive non sequitur. So what the hell is you argument?

I take it then you accept the Universe is contingent if it is the sum of parts?

[SteveH]

I take it then you accept the Universe is contingent if it is the sum of parts?

I don't. I don't see why something that has parts must be contingent.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't. I don't see why something that has parts must be contingent.

Because it is being proposed as the SUM total of parts.

[Stranger]

I take it then you accept the Universe is contingent if it is the sum of parts?

And still no answer to the question. 

It depends how you are using the word. Post the definition you're using and I'll tell you.

[SteveH]

Because it is being proposed as the SUM total of parts.

So what?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You haven't told why something that has parts cannot be necessary.

Sorry.

[jeremyp]

What is argued is the Universe is contingent because it has parts.

It's not being argued. You claim it's being argued, but I haven't seen an argument from you - or anybody - that leads from "the Universe has parts" to "the Universe is contingent".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So what?

Anything that is the sum of parts is composed of parts and exists because it is those parts added together right?

The thing's existence is dependent on parts therefore.
Dependence means the thing is contingent on parts.

Even then if we said there was part of the universe that was necessary or all parts were necessary. The universe would be contingent because it has parts.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's not being argued. You claim it's being argued, but I haven't seen an argument from you - or anybody - that leads from "the Universe has parts" to "the Universe is contingent".

You need to learn the definition of contingency Jeremy.

[jeremyp]

Anything that is the sum of parts is composed of parts and exists because it is those parts added together right?

So God is composed of the Holy Spirit Jesus and his Dad and exists because it is those parts added together. That makes (some) sense.

The thing's existence is dependent on parts therefore.
Dependence means the thing is contingent on parts.

God's existence is dependent on parts therefore.

Dependence means the thing is contingent on parts.

Wait. But you said that a thing is the sum of its parts. Therefore, if a thing is dependent on its parts, it is dependent on itself. If it is dependent on itself, it's not contingent because itself is not something else other than itself.

Therefore the dependence of a thing on its parts is not contingency.

[jeremyp]

You need to learn the definition of contingency Jeremy.

there are two sorts of existent entities: those that exist but could have failed to exist, and those that could not have failed to exist. Entities of the first sort are contingent beings; entities of the second sort are necessary beings

~~ Stanford Encyclopaedia of philosophy

Tell me why something that is dependent on its parts (as everything is) and only on its own parts must be contingent.

[SteveH]

https://www.philosophyofreligion.uk/theistic-proofs/the-cosmological-argument/the-argument-from-contingency/is-the-universe-contingent/

contingent.

The Fallacy of Composition
This argument has been accused of committing the fallacy of composition. The fallacy of composition is the fallacy of inferring from the fact that every part of a whole has a property, that the whole has that property too.

In some cases this kind of inference looks better than in others. If every jewel in a crown is valuable, then the crown is going to be valuable too. If every player on the team is outstanding, then it’s likely, though not certain, that the team is outstanding too.

If every track on the CD is less than five minutes long, though, then it doesn‘t follow that the whole CD is less than five minutes long. Sometimes every part of a whole has a property that the whole itself does not have.

So does the contingency of every part of the universe imply that the universe as a whole is contingent? Apparently not. For in order for the universe to be necessarily existent, it need only be the case that there must exist something rather than nothing; it need not be the case that anything in particular must exist, just that at least one of the many things that might exist must exist, no matter which one it is.

A necessary universe might therefore be composed entirely of contingent parts. The contingency of the parts of the universe therefore does not imply that the universe as a whole is contingent. It might be that even though every part of the universe is contingent, the universe itself is not. It might be that even though it is not necessary that the universe exist in one particular form rather than in any other, the universe had to exist in some form; it could not have failed to exist altogether.

The argument from the contingency of the parts of the universe, then, may not establish that the universe itself is contingent. However, the idea that the universe is necessary rather than contingent does seem to suspect.

To say that the universe is necessary is to say that its non-existence is impossible. Most impossibilities are easily recognised because they involve obvious logical contradiction. The existence of a square circle is impossible, because the idea of a square circle is self-contradictory.

Where, though, is the logical contradiction in the idea of the universe not existing? There seems to be none; the universe does appear to be contingent.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So God is composed of the Holy Spirit Jesus and his Dad and exists because it is those parts added together. That makes (some) sense.God's existence is dependent on parts therefore.Wait. But you said that a thing is the sum of its parts. Therefore, if a thing is dependent on its parts, it is dependent on itself. If it is dependent on itself, it's not contingent because itself is not something else other than itself.

Therefore the dependence of a thing on its parts is not contingency.

God presents Himself to us as Father, Son and Holy Spirit simultaneously and indivisible.

The universe presents itself to us as, er, parts.

God is a single substance there are no parts.

The problem is that the universe is contingent No matter how you cut it.

You are denying the meaning of contingency

[Stranger]

You need to learn the definition of contingency Jeremy.

You need to be clear what you mean by it because you appear to be attempting a rather inept bait-and-switch like con with it. Sell us a 'contingent' universe on the basis it's contingent on its parts (i.e. itself) and then claim a contingent thing can't be contingent on itself.

If you have a logical reason why the universe needs something else to exist, you should be able to make it without using the word 'contingent'. Off you go...

[Stranger]

God presents Himself to us as Father, Son and Holy Spirit simultaneously and indivisible.

The universe presents itself to us as, er, parts.

God is a single substance there are no parts.

The problem is that the universe is contingent No matter how you cut it.

You are denying the meaning of contingency

Comical special pleading.

[jeremyp]

God presents Himself to us as Father, Son and Holy Spirit simultaneously and indivisible.

You say "indivisible". I do not think that word means what you think it means. Something that can be presented as three different things is not indivisible. Just by saying "father" and "son" you have divided the entity.

The universe presents itself to us as, er, parts.

As does God.

God is a single substance there are no parts.

It's because Christians say things like this whilst also claiming there is a father, son and holy spirit, that we think your religion is incoherent.

The problem is that the universe is contingent No matter how you cut it.

The problem is that you haven't shown that the Universe is contingent.

You are denying the meaning of contingency

You are denying the meaning of "indivisible".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You say "indivisible". I do not think that word means what you think it means. Something that can be presented as three different things is not indivisible. Just by saying "father" and "son" you have divided the entity.As does God.It's because Christians say things like this whilst also claiming there is a father, son and holy spirit, that we think your religion is incoherent.
The problem is that you haven't shown that the Universe is contingent.You are denying the meaning of "indivisible".

How we present and are perceived is different to what we substantially are.
If we go back to Steve’s diagram.

The Father is God, The son is God, The Holy Spirit is God

The handbreak is not the car, The engine is not the car, The boot is not the car.

Similarly Stars are not the universe, Planets are not the universe, atoms are not the universe.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No Hillside, it isn't.

Yes Vlad it is.

The fallacy of composition would be to say the Universe is contingent because it's parts are contingent.

Another would be that the universe must be part of something else because its constituent parts are part of something else (ie, the universe)

That isn't what's being argued.

Yes, you’ve abandoned “the universe is contingent on something else because its parts are contingent on each other” to “the universe is part of something else on because its parts are part of something else”.

It’s still fallacy of composition though: you take a property of the parts (ie, their “partness”) and just assume that partness must also therefore be a property of the universe.

I don’t now why, and you seem determined to not tell us.   

What is argued is the Universe is contingent because it has parts.

No, what is asserted (not argued at all) is that the universe is contingent on something else because it’s also contingent on its parts. I have no idea why though as it’s a non sequitur.

Since you seem to want to deny  correction I take pleasure in pointing it out for others.

Oh the irony!