Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I should explain why contingent things should be contingent on something? Are you being serious?

No, as you’re the one who asserts that a universe contingent on its parts must also therefore be contingent on something else, you should explain with an argument why you think that if you want to claim to be taken seriously.

So far though all you’ve done is to run away from providing that argument.

That's all I'm asking since the reductionists here have the universe as merely the sum of contingent things.

No the supposed “reductionists” don’t. The rationalists here on the other hand merely ask you to justify your claim that the universe must be contingent on something other than its parts. It would help if you stopped lying about that.

They don't have to take notice that anything, being contingent is contingent on something else?

All “they” have to do is to notice that you endlessly avoid justifying your claim with an argument.

And infinite regress does not actually provide an answer to what the universe is contingent on.

Begging the question fallacy. Yet again, why do you think the universe must be contingent on anything other than its parts?

It is the kicking of the can down the road and literally multiplies entities beyond necessity without answering anything. Causal loops do not fare much better.

It’s “God” that doesn’t answer anything – it just relocates the “why universe” question to “why god?”.

Try to remember this.

The universe is contingent because it has parts whether those parts were all contingent beings or necessary beings.

Which has nothing to do with your still unargued assertion that because the universe consists of parts it must therefore also be contingent on something other than its parts.

Try to remember this too.

However given the PSR supposing the universe was infinite the question why an infinite universe and not non existence would remain.

Perhaps. But a “don’t know” to that even if it is a valid question would tell you nothing at all about your conjecture “God”.

As a matter of interest what is it that you guys forbid a necessary entity?

As a matter of interest, why are you so keen on straw men? No-one here “forbids” it. What “we” do say though is that when you assert one into existence you should justify that claim with an argument rather than begin and end with just the assertion.

Doubtless I’m wasting my time again here, but do you ever intend to attempt a least an argument to support your assertion that a universe contingent on its parts means that universe must therefore also be contingent on something other than its parts?

Ever?

Ever ever? 

[jeremyp]

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

Yes.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes.

Please justify that claim.

[jeremyp]

Please justify that claim.

It's a question. It's grammatically correct. The punctuation is correct. I can ask it. People can provide an answer.

In fact, it seems dubious to me that questions can separated into "valid" and "invalid".

[Nearly Sane]

It's a question. It's grammatically correct. The punctuation is correct. I can ask it. People can provide an answer.

In fact, it seems dubious to me that questions can separated into "valid" and "invalid".

So can green ideas sleep furiously?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Jeremy,

It's a question. It's grammatically correct. The punctuation is correct. I can ask it. People can provide an answer.

In fact, it seems dubious to me that questions can separated into "valid" and "invalid".

But it’s ambiguous too. Does the questioner mean “what phenomena caused X to exist?” (basically a valid “how” question) or, “for what reason did a purposive entity cause X?” (a “why” question that's invalid because it begs a question).

That’s why it’s useful to ask which version the questioner intends when they ask it.
 

[jeremyp]

So can green ideas sleep furiously?

I don't know. You tell me.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't know. You tell me.

I am not sure an answer makes sense.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Jeremy,

I don't know. You tell me.

You’re missing the point. Your criteria for validity were: “It's a question. It's grammatically correct. The punctuation is correct. I can ask it. People can provide an answer...”.

To be valid though the question must also be coherent. “So can green ideas sleep furiously?” satisfies your “It’s a question. It's grammatically correct. The punctuation is correct. I can ask it” criteria, but no-one can answer it because it’s also incoherent. It has no meaning, which makes it invalid. 

[Nearly Sane]

Jeremy,

But it’s ambiguous too. Does the questioner mean “what phenomena caused X to exist?” (basically a valid “how” question) or, “for what reason did a purposive entity cause X?” (a “why” question that's invalid because it begs a question).

That’s why it’s useful to ask which version the questioner intends when they ask it.
 

Does it make logically coherent sense to talk of nothing in this context?

[jeremyp]

Jeremy,

But it’s ambiguous too. Does the questioner mean “what phenomena caused X to exist?”

I think that's the most reasonable interpretation.

(basically a valid “how” question) or, “for what reason did a purposive entity cause X?” (a “why” question that's invalid because it begs a question).

That's not what "begs the question" means. Begging the question is where an argument assumes its conclusion.

The second interpretation assumes facts not in evidence, but that doesn't make the first interpretation invalid.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Does it make logically coherent sense to talk of nothing in this context?

Sorry, I don't follow. Do you mean as in "why something rather than nothing?"? I was referring only to grammatical correctness not being a sufficient criterion for validity, but as to this larger question I don't know, though "nothing" has sufficient meaning colloquially at least I'd have thought to make conversation about it at least possible.     

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Sorry, I don't follow. Do you mean as in "why something rather than nothing?"? I was referring only to grammatical correctness not being a sufficient criterion for validity, but as to this larger question I don't know, though "nothing" has sufficient meaning colloquially at least I'd have thought to make conversation about it at least possible.   

Given the context is the question being discussed, I thought that was clear.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Jeremy,

I think that's the most reasonable interpretation.

You might but the questioner might not. Unless you clarify, suddenly a purposive entity (eg, “god”) is treated as if it was a valid premise. That’s the problem with the ambiguity in a "why" question.     

That's not what "begs the question" means. Begging the question is where an argument assumes its conclusion.

Yes it is. The conclusion here is that there’s a purposive entity to determine the “why”, and it’s assumed in the question if the questioner intended it that way.   

The second interpretation assumes facts not in evidence, but that doesn't make the first interpretation invalid.

Yes it does – if the premise is just assumed then the question is invalid. Is “why are leprechauns musical?” a valid question? Why not? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Given the context is the question being discussed, I thought that was clear.

Not to me because the context was the insufficiency of grammatical correctness alone for the validity of a question (which was your point I think), not the prior discussion about why something rather than nothing.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Not to me because the context was the insufficiency of grammatical correctness alone for the validity of a question (which was your point I think), not the prior discussion about why something rather than nothing.

I apologise that it was not clear but it's what I meant. So now that's cleared up....

[SteveH]

Now back to unargued assertion.   

Still no reasoning from 'has parts' to 'depends on something else'.

Most of us understand the difference between contingence and necessity, but Walt Disnae.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Most of us understand the difference between contingence and necessity, but Walt Disnae.

I don't think that's true since some are having difficulty with necessity.

You have said the universe is the necessary entity but not necessarily this one......suggesting you are confused about it.
Outrider has on the face of it proposed a universe which is not just the sum of contingent things....if I have him right.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I don't think that's true since some are having difficulty with necessity.

You have said the universe is the necessary entity but not necessarily this one......suggesting you are confused about it.
Outrider has on the face of it proposed a universe which is not just the sum of contingent things....if I have him right.

Have you managed to come up with an argument yet to justify your assertion that a universe being contingent on its parts means it must also therefore be contingent on something else?

Something?

Anything?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Have you managed to come up with an argument yet to justify your assertion that a universe being contingent on its parts means it must also therefore be contingent on something else?

Something?

Anything?

Any composite is dependent on it's parts and is therefore contingent on those parts. If those parts are contingent then we have to ask what it is they are contingent on I.e where the necessity lies.

Necessity does not emerge.

The universe could be redefined to include a necessity as well as contingent things but as a composite it is still a contingent

You're very welcome.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, I believe you should explain why a universe that contains contingent things is therefore necessarily contingent itself upon something else.

A universe that contains contingent things.....rather than a universe that is 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.

Do you not see the circularity here?
The things that make up the universe are dependent for their existence on the universe?

The universe is actually contingent on the contingent things in the universe which are contingent on........?

Now, if you say the necessary entity part I can live with that provided we share the same conception of what the necessary being is

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.

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.

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.

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.

I can't speak for everyone, but for me it's 'well where did that come from?'

O.

First of all as Steve has pointed out, why this universe and not another. Why this universe and not non existence.

Of course extrapolating a set is valid in maths. Is it valid though in physics?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Any composite is dependent on it's parts and is therefore contingent on those parts.

Okaaaay…

If those parts are contingent then we have to ask what it is they are contingent on I.e where the necessity lies.

Not according to you we don’t. Just a few posts ago you told us that the contingent character of the parts wasn’t relevant to your assertion that the universe as a whole must be contingent on something else. It would help if you made your mind up about which horse you’re riding here.

In any case though, in a wholly a determinative model the parts are “contingent on” their antecedent parts.

Necessity does not emerge.

Nope, no idea. What are you trying to say here?

The universe could be redefined to include a necessity as well as contingent things but as a composite it is still a contingent

On its component parts, yes. That’s not your assertion though is it. Your assertion is that the fact of being composed of parts (whether or not those parts are contingent) means that the universe itself must also therefore be contingent on something other than the parts of which it’s composed.

You’ve been invited over and over again to justify this so far unargued assertion with an argument but all you’ve done in reply is duck and dive or just run away. So here we go again:

How would you propose to justify your assertion that a universe being contingent on its parts means it must also therefore be contingent on something else?
 

You're very welcome.

For what – yet more of your evasiveness? Wouldn’t it be more honest just to say something like, “OK fine, I concede that I have no argument to justify my assertion and I therefore withdraw it”?

Surely it's better to be honestly wrong than dishonestly wrong isn't it?

Isn't it though?
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Okaaaay…

Not according to you we don’t. Just a few posts ago you told us that the contingent character of the parts wasn’t relevant to your assertion that the universe as a whole must be contingent on something else. It would help if you made your mind up about which horse you’re riding here.

In any case though, in a wholly a determinative model the parts are “contingent on” their antecedent parts.

Nope, no idea. What are you trying to say here?

On its component parts, yes. That’s not your assertion though is it. Your assertion is that the fact of being composed of parts (whether or not those parts are contingent) means that the universe itself must also therefore be contingent on something other than the parts of which it’s composed.

You’ve been invited over and over again to justify this so far unargued assertion with an argument but all you’ve done in reply is duck and dive or just run away. So here we go again:

How would you propose to justify your assertion that a universe being contingent on its parts means it must also therefore be contingent on something else?
   

For what – yet more of your evasiveness? Wouldn’t it be more honest just to say something like, “OK fine, I concede that I have no argument to justify my assertion and I therefore withdraw it”?

Surely it's better to be honestly wrong than dishonestly wrong isn't it?

Isn't it though?
 

Hillside
I've shown the universe is contingent. Mission accomplished.
If the universe is comprised of parts and you say they are contingent then we have to ask what they are contingent on.

To say the universe is contingent on it's parts and the parts are contingent on the universe is a circular argument.

Read the Wikipedia entry on the Cosmological argument.

The only one who really gets this I think is Jeremy P.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I've shown the universe is contingent. Mission accomplished.

Bullshit. All you’ve “shown” so far is that the universe is contingent on its parts, but that’s not your claim. Your claim is that, because the universe is contingent on its parts, it’s also therefore contingent on something other than its parts. 

If the universe is comprised of parts and you say they are contingent then we have to ask what they are contingent on.

I told you that in my last Reply – in a determinative model the parts are contingent on their antecedent parts. It’s not difficult.

To say the universe is contingent on it's parts and the parts are contingent on the universe is a circular argument.

No it isn’t – it’s just an observation of the inter-relationship between the two. 

Read the Wikipedia entry on the Cosmological argument.

Does that answer the question you keep running away from, namely:

How would you propose to justify your assertion that a universe being contingent on its parts means it must also therefore be contingent on something else?

If it doesn’t, why don’t you answer it instead as that’s your claim?

The only one who really gets this I think is Jeremy P.

I’m not aware that Jeremy knows either how you’d propose to justify your claim that a universe being contingent on its parts means it must also therefore be continent on something else, but no doubt he will tell is whether he’s managed to guess at the argument you either don’t have or are determined to keep a secret.

If you do have a justifying argument for your claim though, why would you insist on keeping it a secret? 

Hmmm…

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Bullshit. All you’ve “shown” so far is that the universe is contingent on its parts, but that’s not your claim. Your claim is that, because the universe is contingent on its parts, it’s also therefore contingent on something other than its parts. 

I told you that in my last Reply – in a determinative model the parts are contingent on their antecedent parts. It’s not difficult.

No it isn’t – it’s just an observation of the inter-relationship between the two. 

Does that answer the question you keep running away from, namely:

How would you propose to justify your assertion that a universe being contingent on its parts means it must also therefore be contingent on something else?

If it doesn’t, why don’t you answer it instead as that’s your claim?

I’m not aware that Jeremy knows either how you’d propose to justify your claim that a universe being contingent on its parts means it must also therefore be continent on something else, but no doubt he will tell is whether he’s managed to guess at the argument you either don’t have or are determined to keep a secret.

If you do have a justifying argument for your claim though, why would you insist on keeping it a secret? 

Hmmm…

Again. If the the Universe is contingent on it's parts, what are the parts contingent on? It can't be the universe. It can't be each other.....causal loops and that.