Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Comical special pleading.

Comical special pleading would be more in the realm of “Yes, the universe is contingent...but on itself
“

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes Vlad it is.

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

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.   

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.

Oh the irony!

Since there’s no defence against indestructible ignorance, i’ll Leave it here”

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Since there’s no defence against indestructible ignorance, i’ll Leave it here”

Meaning, "Since I have no defence against the arguments I can't rebut I'll run away and hope no-one notices".

That's not surprising – after all, you have form for it. You need to remember though that if ever you're daft enough to essay the argument from contingency again the same land mine awaits you: you have no argument to support your assertion that the fact of an entity consisting of (ie, being contingent on) its parts means that the entity must also be part of (ie, be contingent on) something else. 

Thanks for trying though. 

[Stranger]

Comical special pleading would be more in the realm of “Yes, the universe is contingent...but on itself

But we are all still waiting for you to make an argument that the universe is contingent on anything else. You keep insisting that it's contingent on its parts but that isn't an external contingency.

You are the only one here who is saying it's contingent on itself.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Meaning, "Since I have no defence against the arguments I can't rebut I'll run away and hope no-one notices".

That's not surprising – after all, you have form for it. You need to remember though that if ever you're daft enough to essay the argument from contingency again the same land mine awaits you: you have no argument to support your assertion that the fact of an entity consisting of (ie, being contingent on) its parts means that the entity must also be part of (ie, be contingent on) something else. 

Thanks for trying though.

Two quick points further to your invincible ignorance. 1) At no point in this matter have I referred to the universe as part of something. I don't see that as relevant.

2) You and the posse seem to have no trouble with the idea of the universe being part of a multiverse or as one of the serial universes described by Penrose.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Two quick points further to your invincible ignorance.

You can't accuse someone of being ignorant of an argument you've shown no sign of having.

1) At no point in this matter have I referred to the universe as part of something. I don't see that as relevant.

So, according to you, the universe isn't part of your god's creation project then?

That's pretty radical for a supposed Christian, but OK. Thanks for clarifying.

2) You and the posse...

I don't have a "posse".

...seem to have no trouble with the idea of the universe being part of a multiverse or as one of the serial universes described by Penrose

No, but I do have a "difficulty" with your unargued assertion that the fact of being made of/contingent on its parts implies that the universe must also be part of/contingent on something else.

Perhaps if you bothered making an argument to that effect rather than implying the argument from composition that difficulty would go away? 

What's stopping you? Surely it can't be that you don't actually have that argument can it?

[Stranger]

Two quick points further to your invincible ignorance. 1) At no point in this matter have I referred to the universe as part of something. I don't see that as relevant.

2) You and the posse seem to have no trouble with the idea of the universe being part of a multiverse or as one of the serial universes described by Penrose.

Still running away from providing the first hint of an argument that the universe must depend on anything else. You can't blame your inability to produce any reasoning on other people's supposed ignorance.

And BTW nobody is saying that the multiverse ideas are necessarily true. They are hypothetical at best.

[SteveH]

The parts of the universe being contingent does not mean that the universe is contingent. In fact, I am going to argue that the universe's existence is necessary. One property of a necessarily-existing thing is that it's impossible to imagine it not existing without falling into a logical contradiction, and that, I put it to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is the case with the universe itself: how can absolutely nothing exist - bear in mind that that means not only physical objects, but time and space? It can't - ergo, the universe exists necessarily.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The parts of the universe being contingent does not mean that the universe is contingent. In fact, I am going to argue that the universe's existence is necessary. One property of a necessarily-existing thing is that it's impossible to imagine it not existing without falling into a logical contradiction, and that, I put it to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is the case with the universe itself: how can absolutely nothing exist - bear in mind that that means not only physical objects, but time and space? It can't - ergo, the universe exists necessarily.

At last...someone with balls.

[Nearly Sane]

The parts of the universe being contingent does not mean that the universe is contingent. In fact, I am going to argue that the universe's existence is necessary. One property of a necessarily-existing thing is that it's impossible to imagine it not existing without falling into a logical contradiction, and that, I put it to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is the case with the universe itself: how can absolutely nothing exist - bear in mind that that means not only physical objects, but time and space? It can't - ergo, the universe exists necessarily.

Pretty much on board with that - it does mean though that you are now effectively stating the question of 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' is invalid.

Where I disagree is that I'm not convinced that the idea of 'necessary' or 'contingent' makes much sense in this context.

[Nearly Sane]

At last...someone with balls.

You should know. You are the king of bollocks.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You should know. You are the king of bollocks.

That would make you my subject.

[SteveH]

Pretty much on board with that - it does mean though that you are now effectively stating the question of 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' is invalid.

Yes, I know. Having thought about it more, I think that it is indeed invalid.

[Nearly Sane]

That would make you my subject.

To the guillotine!

[Nearly Sane]

Yes, I know. Having thought about it more, I think that it is indeed invalid.

Kudos!

[SteveH]

The parts of the universe being contingent does not mean that the universe is contingent. In fact, I am going to argue that the universe's existence is necessary. One property of a necessarily-existing thing is that it's impossible to imagine it not existing without falling into a logical contradiction, and that, I put it to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is the case with the universe itself: how can absolutely nothing exist - bear in mind that that means not only physical objects, but time and space? It can't - ergo, the universe exists necessarily.

One minor caveat - A universe is necessary, but it doesn't have to be THIS universe.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So are we done here now? Your argument-free assertion remains: “The universe comprises the sum of its parts, therefore the universe is contingent on something other than the sum of its parts”.

I have no idea why you think this and nor, despite numerous invitations to tell us, do you seem inclined to tell us why you think this.

Oh well. Feel free to come back to it though if ever you do find a logically sound justifying argument for that “therefore” that you’re prepared to share.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

So are we done here now? Your argument-free assertion remains: “The universe comprises the sum of its parts, therefore the universe is contingent on something other than the sum of its parts”.

I have no idea why you think this and nor, despite numerous invitations to tell us, do you seem inclined to tell us why you think this.

Oh well. Feel free to come back to it though if ever you do find a logically sound justifying argument for that “therefore” that you’re prepared to share.

Dear old Hillside, somebody abandons him because of his invincible ignorance and he thinks he's won.

[jeremyp]

How we present and are perceived is different to what we substantially are.

Another kind of division.

If we go back to Steve’s diagram.

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

But they are not each other (don't leave out the lines round the perimeter of Steve's diagram) - hence God is divisible

The handbreak is not the car

Certainly not. The hand break is best sent to A&E.

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

And Jesus is not identical with God because there are two other persons involved as well.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

One minor caveat - A universe is necessary, but it doesn't have to be THIS universe.

Go Steve!

[Stranger]

Go Steve!

Still waiting for your argument, Vlad.

[Nearly Sane]

Go Steve!

So you agree with him that 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' is an invalid question?

[jeremyp]

Yes, I know. Having thought about it more, I think that it is indeed invalid.

No it isn't. Your argument that the Universe is necessary is simply an answer to it. It's stating "the Universe couldn't not exist".

I don't like it because arguments about the real world that rely only on logical deduction set alarm bells ringing in my head. I suspect there is a flaw in it.

[Nearly Sane]

No it isn't. Your argument that the Universe is necessary is simply an answer to it. It's stating "the Universe couldn't not exist".

I don't like it because arguments about the real world that rely only on logical deduction set alarm bells ringing in my head. I suspect there is a flaw in it.

So do you think that the question 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' Is a valid one?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you agree with him that 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' is an invalid question?

I'm not sure where we(you) are with this.
It is an invalid question, it might be an invalid question or it's a question that has been answered I.e. "there isn't nothing because there is a necessary being". Which is it?