Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[SteveH]

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

I said "and not another". I didnot say "...and not non-existence". I was suggesting that the universe might be necessary, even though all its components are contingent (which isn't contradictory) by pointing out that strict non-existence - no time or space, let alone physical objects - might be logically contradictory. NB - "might be". It's a suggestion, not an assertion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I said "and not another". I didnot say "...and not non-existence". I was suggesting that the universe might be necessary, even though all its components are contingent (which isn't contradictory) by pointing out that strict non-existence - no time or space, let alone physical objects - might be logically contradictory. NB - "might be". It's a suggestion, not an assertion.

OK I accept your point. You are suggesting though that the universe could have been different...which makes it contingent since there is a reason why this universe and not another.

I acknowledge that "or no universe" was my suggestion.

If you are suggesting something must exist....I'd agree.

[SteveH]

OK I accept your point. You are suggesting though that the universe could have been different...which makes it contingent since there is a reason why this universe and not another.

I acknowledge that "or no universe" was my suggestion.

If you are suggesting something must exist....I'd agree.

OK, THIS universe is contingent, but A universe is necessary.

[Stranger]

Again. If the the Universe is contingent on it's parts, what are the parts contingent on?

I dunno, this is your claim and your 'argument'.

It can't be the universe. It can't be each other.....causal loops and that.

Why not? Name something that clearly depends on something else but that something else isn't a part of the universe or the universe itself. I'm not going to indulge your use of the terms 'contingent' and 'necessary' because you seem to be making shit up about them and changing your definitions as you go along.

So, we need a dependency that is clearly on something that isn't the universe or a part thereof....

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I dunno, this is your claim and your 'argument'.

Why not? Name something that clearly depends on something else but that something else isn't a part of the universe or the universe itself. I'm not going to indulge your use of the terms 'contingent' and 'necessary' because you seem to be making shit up about them and changing your definitions as you go along.

So, we need a dependency that is clearly on something that isn't the universe or a part thereof....

Causal loops give rise to somethings being contingent on themselves which is absurd and precisely the thing to avoid if you want to eliminate necessity.

You can't avoid contingency and infinite regress is what is known as vicious in that it never solves the contingency.

[Stranger]

Causal loops give rise to somethings being contingent on themselves which is absurd and precisely the thing to avoid if you want to eliminate necessity.

You can't avoid contingency and infinite regress is what is known as vicious in that it never solves the contingency.

As I said, I'm not playing your games with the terminology and I'm not proposing anything myself.

Where in the universe is there anything that depends on anything that isn't the universe or a part thereof?

If you can't answer that, you have no argument.

[Outrider]

A universe that contains contingent things.....rather than a universe that is the sum of contingent things? Do you not see the circularity here?

Not really, no.

The things that make up the universe are dependent for their existence on the universe?

Plausibly, yes.

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

Not necessarily - the whole point is that you've yet to establish in this model why the universe must be contingent on anything.

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

Why presume alternates are possible? Why presume any plausible alternatives aren't also out there, somewhere?

Why this universe and not non existence.

Meaningless. Why 'god' rather than 'not god'. If you're positing something as the 'unmoved mover' it doesn't have a 'why'.

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

That's literally rocket science.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Plausibly, yes.

Your contention, your burden

Not necessarily - the whole point is that you've yet to establish in this model why the universe must be contingent on anything.

What model? I've given two one which is the sum of contingent things and another which contains contingent things and non contingent things

Why presume alternates are possible? Why presume any plausible alternatives aren't also out there, somewhere?

Not sure what you are trying to say here

Meaningless. Why 'god' rather than 'not god'.

God is proposed as the necessary being. You are proposing the universe as a candidate. I.e. Not contingent on anything. The problem though is accountancy, namely what is the contingency
In the universe contingent on? If you say the universe, you are saying that the contingent things are contingent on themselves, a causal loop and an absurdity. If you say there is a necessary component of the universe then I can live with that depending on what you understand by it

[Stranger]

God is proposed as the necessary being.

By your own argument, your composite God is contingent.

The problem though is accountancy, namely what is the contingency
In the universe contingent on? If you say the universe, you are saying that the contingent things are contingent on themselves, a causal loop and an absurdity. If you say there is a necessary component of the universe then I can live with that depending on what you understand by it

Vacuous bullshit.

Where in the universe is there anything that depends on anything that isn't the universe or a part thereof?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Just looking in to see whether you’ve made any progress yet with a justifying argument for your assertion that the universe consisting of parts means it must therefore be contingent on something other than its parts. I can see your usual playbook of straw men, shifting the burden of proof, language abuse, diversionary tactics etc but still no justifying argument. 

Ah well. Can you think of any reason for me to not conclude that you don’t actually have that argument rather than that you do have it but you want to keep it very, very secret?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

By your own argument, your composite God is contingent.

We disagree on God being composite but it looks at last we agree on composites being contingent

Vacuous bullshit.

Where in the universe is there anything that depends on anything that isn't the universe or a part thereof?

[Outrider]

Your contention, your burden.

I've shown it's plausible, I don't need to prove it, I'm suggesting it as a possibility.

What model? I've given two one which is the sum of contingent things and another which contains contingent things and non contingent things

The one where you've assumed that because a universe has contingent things in it it must therefore be a contingent thing itself. You know, the one everyone here keeps on at you to explain but you keep failing to do so.

Not sure what you are trying to say here

You've asked, in response to the proposal that the universe is not contingent upon anything else, why this universe rather than another, or why this universe instead of no universe at all - if the universe is non-contingent, then 'why' is meaningless, as by definition it has no cause. Similarly, if the universe is non-contingent, that does not presuppose that other universes (contingent or otherwise) cannot exist.

God is proposed as the necessary being. You are proposing the universe as a candidate. I.e. Not contingent on anything. The problem though is accountancy, namely what is the contingency in the universe contingent on? If you say the universe, you are saying that the contingent things are contingent on themselves, a causal loop and an absurdity.

You are presuming that the universe is the sum of its parts and not, rather, the source of them.

O.

[Stranger]

We disagree on God being composite but it looks at last we agree on composites being contingent

  No, Vlad, we do not. I'm just pointing out that you're being totally inconsistent, as well as running away from justifying your claim.

Where in the universe is there anything that depends on anything that isn't the universe or a part thereof?

[jeremyp]

Jeremy,

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.   

I think all this is bullshit. When we ask "why is there something rather than nothing?" we are asking for a reason for there being something - any reason.  We are not assuming a creator and asking for its purpose in creating something.

I've never seen anybody ask that question in the sense of "why did the creator make the Universe?" - even Christians, although they would claim to have an answer.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Jeremy,

I think all this is bullshit. When we ask "why is there something rather than nothing?" we are asking for a reason for there being something - any reason.  We are not assuming a creator and asking for its purpose in creating something.

I've never seen anybody ask that question in the sense of "why did the creator make the Universe?" - even Christians, although they would claim to have an answer.

And yet only three Replies before yours Vlad tried to sneak in “We disagree on God being composite but it looks at last we agree on composites being contingent” as if “God” was an agreed premise and he and Stranger were just having a doctrinal disagreement about that premise.

That’s the point here. It would be easy to ask “how did the universe come about?” and to have a sensible conversation about that, but change it to a “why” question instead and you leave open the door to legitimising a string of “because god decided X, Y or Z” in reply as if these were legitimate arguments.

“How did little Timmy die? He was run over by an ice cream truck.”

“Why did Little Timmy die? Because god wanted to welcome him to heaven double quick.”

Big difference.           

[jeremyp]

Causal loops give rise to somethings being contingent on themselves which is absurd and precisely the thing to avoid if you want to eliminate necessity.

You can't avoid contingency and infinite regress is what is known as vicious in that it never solves the contingency.

"Contingent" means "dependent on something else for its existence". If the Universe is only dependent on its parts for its existence, then it is not contingent because saying something is "dependent only on its parts" is saying it is dependent only on itself. This apparent circularity is easily resolved by saying it came into existence spontaneously or is eternal or is the result of an infinite regress or exists outside of time.

There's another source of confusion caused by the various types of dependency. The Universe is dependent on its parts in the sense that it is made of its parts and perhaps shaped by its parts, but contingency has a narrower meaning. Contingency is more to do with cause. The Universe wasn't caused by its parts. They came into existence during the lifetime of the Universe.

[jeremyp]

Jeremy,

And yet only three Replies before yours Vlad tried to sneak in “We disagree on God being composite but it looks at last we agree on composites being contingent” as if “God” was an agreed premise and he and Stranger were just having a doctrinal disagreement about that premise.

That’s the point here. It would be easy to ask “how did the universe come about?” and to have a sensible conversation about that, but change it to a “why” question instead and you leave open the door to legitimising a string of “because god decided X, Y or Z” in reply as if these were legitimate arguments.

“How did little Timmy die? He was run over by an ice cream truck.”

“Why did Little Timmy die? Because god wanted to welcome him to heaven double quick.”

Big difference.           

Nope.

Vlad's answer to "why is there something rather than nothing?" is "Because God created it". His answer begs the question in the correct sense i.e. God is part of the something.

And please stop constructing different questions with different contexts but with the word "why" on the front as if it proved anything. It doesn't.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Jeremy,

Nope.

Vlad's answer to "why is there something rather than nothing?" is "Because God created it". His answer begs the question in the correct sense i.e. God is part of the something.

And please stop constructing different questions with different contexts but with the word "why" on the front as if it proved anything. It doesn't.

There are only so many ways I can explain this. If you want to assume that when Vlad (or any other believer in a purposive entity) frames a question as a "why" rather than as a "how" he doesn't do it as a back door to the "because god...." etcs that follow that's up to you. The number of times he/they do though then introduce a reified god as if that premise had been agreed should at least give you pause about this though I'd have thought.       

In any case, you are of course free to answer any such "why" question as if it had been framed as a "how" question, just as I'm free to ask for disambiguating clarification first.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've shown it's plausible, I don't need to prove it, I'm suggesting it as a possibility.

Physical infinities and infinite regresses which don't actually answer the problem offered as an answer to the problem plausible? I'm afraid we will have to differ on that

The one where you've assumed that because a universe has contingent things in it it must therefore be a contingent thing itself. You know, the one everyone here keeps on at you to explain but you keep failing to do so.

But that isn't my argument Outrider. MY argument is it is contingent because it is a composite and would be whether it's parts were contingent or necessary

You've asked, in response to the proposal that the universe is not contingent upon anything else, why this universe rather than another, or why this universe instead of no universe at all - if the universe is non-contingent, then 'why' is meaningless, as by definition it has no cause. Similarly, if the universe is non-contingent, that does not presuppose that other universes (contingent or otherwise) cannot exist.

By definition the universe the universe is not contingent? If it is composed of stuff and not a single substance then it is definitionally a contingent

You are presuming that the universe is the sum of its parts and not, rather, the source of them.

What are you trying to say? The universe is not contingent things?

[Stranger]

If it is composed of stuff and not a single substance then it is definitionally a contingent

And Vlad makes up definitions of words to suit again. If something like string theory is correct, it would be a single substance, of coures, not that it matters much because you're still just running away!

Where in the universe is there anything that depends on anything that isn't the universe or a part thereof?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

...don't actually answer the problem...

Just to be clear here, you're telling someone else that some things they've said "don't actually answer the problem"?

Seriously?

Seriously seriously though?

So, someone who inserts an "it's magic innit?" god to answer the question "why the universe?" as if that actually answers anything at all rather than just special pleads its way to a relocation of the same question about that god has the sheer brass neck to accuse someone else of not answering the problem?   

Ooh stop it now – my sides are splitting. I might even lose a kidney of you keep on with it... 

PS Any news by the way of your finally producing an argument to justify your assertion about the universe consisting of parts meaning it must also therefore be contingent on something else?

No?

Nothing at all?

Oh well. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Just to be clear here, you're telling someone else that some things they've said "don't actually answer the problem"?

Seriously?

Seriously seriously though?

So, someone who inserts an "it's magic innit?" god to answer the question "why the universe?" as if that actually answers anything at all rather than just special pleads its way to a relocation of the same question about that god has the sheer brass neck to accuse someone else of not answering the problem?   

Ooh stop it now – my sides are splitting. I might even lose a kidney of you keep on with it... 

PS Any news by the way of your finally producing an argument to justify your assertion about the universe consisting of parts meaning it must also therefore be contingent on something else?

No?

Nothing at all?

Oh well.

Fascinating facts about actual infinities and infinite regress.

Infinite regress never answers contingency.

Actual infinities not observed. Weirdly though Feser thinks Lane Craig wrong to dismiss the infinite number of points in any line.
Even more weirdly. I disagree with Feser on this.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Fascinating facts about actual infinities and infinite regress.

Infinite regress never answers contingency.

Actual infinities not observed. Weirdly though Feser thinks Lane Craig wrong to dismiss the infinite number of points in any line.
Even more weirdly. I disagree with Feser on this.

Thanks for the diversionary irrelevancies. Now then, shall we get back to the same question you keep avoiding? Can you finally muster an argument to justify your assertion that a universe made of parts means that it must also therefore be contingent on something other than its parts?

Anything?

[Stranger]

Fascinating facts about actual infinities and infinite regress.

Infinite regress never answers contingency.

Actual infinities not observed. Weirdly though Feser thinks Lane Craig wrong to dismiss the infinite number of points in any line.
Even more weirdly. I disagree with Feser on this.

Irrelevant. Stop running away.

What in the universe depends on anything that isn't the universe or a part thereof?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Irrelevant. Stop running away.

What in the universe depends on anything that isn't the universe or a part thereof?

Key to your question is that hierarchies of dependence trace to something in the universe that ultimately explains all the parts (contingent things) in the universe or you are suggesting a closed causal loop or set of closed causal loops.

None are observed and would in any case be logically absurd

Let's try a couple of hierarchies

Hierarchy of cosmological structures stars dependent on nebulae dependent on supernova dependent on early stars dependent on early universe  dependent on big bang dependent on?

Hierarchy 2 Bodies dependent on tissues dependent on cells dependent  on organelles dependent on molecules dependent on atoms dependent on subatomic particles dependent on?

The question should be...what is it that is observed and is not contingent on anything else?