I should explain why contingent things should be contingent on something? Are you being serious?
No, I believe you should explain why a universe that contains contingent things is
therefore necessarily contingent itself upon something else.
That's all I'm asking since the reductionists here have the universe as merely the sum of contingent things.
You keep with that sneering, dismissive, 'merely', as though your alternative is superior because it introduces something. Maybe those contingent things are contingent upon the universe, as seems plausible.
And infinite regress does not actually provide an answer to what the universe is contingent on.
It doesn't need to, it's just there to show that you can't necessarily conclude that there must be some ultimately incontingent thing.
It is the kicking of the can down the road and literally multiplies entities beyond necessity without answering anything.
Doesn't have to 'multiply entities' at all, there is just the energy of the cosmos with arranges and rearranges itself manifesting universe after universe after universe, infinitely.
Causal loops do not fare much better.
A little less logically intuitive, but for those of us with, say, a mechanical bent still a better explanation that inexplicably uncaused complex divine being magicked it.
The universe is contingent because it has parts whether those parts were all contingent beings or necessary beings.
That doesn't follow. That the things in the universe are contingent (on, amongst other things, the universe) does not make the universe necessarily contingent upon anything else.
As a matter of interest what is it that you guys forbids a necessary entity?
I can't speak for everyone, but for me it's 'well where did that come from?'
O.
