To infinity and beyond.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But surely your schema must 'start' with the 'necessary' preceding any initial state of 'contingency', and any approach of working backwards doesn't avoid that scenario.

So, the 'God' you pray to may not be this 'necessary' thing after all?

No the argument is from contingency.
It is bottom up argument employing methodological naturalism at the start and that avoids skyhook.
The argument does not need any time reference since there are hierarchies of being e.g. We exist because our cells exist, because molecules exist, because our atoms exist etc. Down to the fundamental reason

[jeremyp]

I have even been taken to task for insisting the universe has to be contingent if it is just a collection of contingent things. You seem to be contradicting your observation that things formed from other things are contingent on those things and that makes them contingent.

I have not made that observation.

The apparent problem for me is, supposedly the fallacy of composition. e.g. just because a wall is made of small bricks doesn’t mean it has to be a small wall. But which ever way you cut it, the wall is still a composite and its “wallness” is dependent on its bricks.

But it's not contingent on the bricks in it. That's the point. You want to redefine contingency to mean whatever kind of dependency suits your purpose. That won't fly. We can see your dishonesty.

Similarly, the universality of the universe is dependent on its components.

And yet the components are dependent on the Universe.

Oh look, we have another way to avoid the existence of a necessary thing.

You argue against circular dependencies and yet you give us an example yourself.

[jeremyp]

The first and third describe a contingent entity.

Interesting. I saw a bus this morning and it had a number of passengers on board. You claim the bus is contingent on the passengers.

Not sure I have proposed the second since X would equal Y wouldn’t it?

No. Humans are made of cells. Humans are not cells.

[Gordon]

No the argument is from contingency.
It is bottom up argument employing methodological naturalism at the start and that avoids skyhook.
The argument does not need any time reference since there are hierarchies of being e.g. We exist because our cells exist, because molecules exist, because our atoms exist etc. Down to the fundamental reason

Nope - for you the 'necessary' is a supernatural agent (a.k.a. 'skyhook') that precedes anything that is susceptible to the the tools of methodological naturalism - presumably you see it as a special case that is not amenable to methodological naturalism, which is both special pleading and a category error.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What came before it, that's sort of what contingency means.

O.

No the contingency of the "It" has no bearing on the contingency or otherwise of what came before.

In terms of a temporal chain of contingency, there are other heirarchies of existence independent of befores and after e.g the Tory government existed simultaneously with the requisite MPs it was contingent on. So you can have contingency irrespective of "before"

[jeremyp]

No the contingency of the "It" has no bearing on the contingency or otherwise of what came before.

In terms of a temporal chain of contingency, there are other heirarchies of existence independent of befores and after e.g the Tory government existed simultaneously with the requisite MPs it was contingent on. So you can have contingency irrespective of "before"

So God is contingent on the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

Got it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope - for you the 'necessary' is a supernatural agent (a.k.a. 'skyhook') that precedes anything that is susceptible to the the tools of methodological naturalism - presumably you see it as a special case that is not amenable to methodological naturalism, which is both special pleading and a category error.

Skyhook refer to the commencement of an argument using a skyhook I.e.something which needs no explanation soI think you've misunderstood the term skyhook here.

In the argument from contingency the existence is inferred starting from the observed.

Given that. I'm trying to find meaning in your post that is possible to address
I think you may have confused the term skyhook with Skyfairy.

I think the term supernatural doesn't help since all objections to my argument have sought answers in things which are beyond nature including.

Circular hierarchies of causation
Popping out of nothing
Contingency without necessity
Just is.

In short calling something supernatural doesn't have the destructive effect or sense that you suppose it has.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So God is contingent on the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

Got it.

Not really. Using the contingency of the tory government is poor analogy.
The trinity aren't parts since God doesn't exist independently in parts.

[jeremyp]

Not really. Using the contingency of the tory government is poor analogy.

Thanks for the admission.

The trinity aren't parts since God doesn't exist independently in parts.

The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three different aspects of God right? If they don't exist, God doesn't exist. Therefore God is contingent on the persons of the Trinity.

You can't get out of it.

[Gordon]

Skyhook refer to the commencement of an argument using a skyhook I.e.something which needs no explanation soI think you've misunderstood the term skyhook here.

Nope - for you 'God' is something that requires no explanation: it 'just is', therefore it is a 'skyhook'.

In the argument from contingency the existence is inferred starting from the observed.

Which you use to claim a preceding supernatural 'necessary' agent

You're confusing yourself again

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope - for you 'God' is something that requires no explanation: it 'just is', therefore it is a 'skyhook'.

Which you use to claim a preceding supernatural 'necessary' agent

You're confusing yourself again

A supernatural agent like the Necessary entity doesn't have to precede anything in a heirarchy of being. This was spelt out some posts back.

[Outrider]

No the contingency of the "It" has no bearing on the contingency or otherwise of what came before.

Except that that's what you're asking for, something that comes before 'the chain' which by the definition of the chain doesn't exist. It's infinite, the clue is in the name

In terms of a temporal chain of contingency, there are other heirarchies of existence independent of befores and after e.g the Tory government existed simultaneously with the requisite MPs it was contingent on. So you can have contingency irrespective of "before"

Not really - until you have MPs, you can't have a parliament. Similarly, you can have the chain of cause and effect, but it's contingent on the elements of the chain, it doesn't exist before them for them to slot into.

So you're back to the infinite chain of events, which are individually only congingent upon the one before them.

O.

[Gordon]

A supernatural agent like the Necessary entity doesn't have to precede anything in a heirarchy of being. This was spelt out some posts back.

So why are so obsessed with 'necessity' if it ain't required?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So why are so obsessed with 'necessity' if it ain't required?

Of course it's required. Just like the eiffel tower depends on having it's lower stage.....
Which kind of illustrates circular hierarchies and infinite regresses. They are sort of free floating entities.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Except that that's what you're asking for, something that comes before 'the chain' which by the definition of the chain doesn't exist. It's infinite, the clue is in the name

Not really - until you have MPs, you can't have a parliament. Similarly, you can have the chain of cause and effect, but it's contingent on the elements of the chain, it doesn't exist before them for them to slot into.

So you're back to the infinite chain of events, which are individually only congingent upon the one before them.

O.

First cause is first cause in a causal chain. So it isn't outside the chain of causation. It is the uncaused cause or reason.
And it's the base in vertical hierarchies of being.

[Nearly Sane]

Of course it's required. Just like the eiffel tower depends on having it's lower stage.....
Which kind of illustrates circular hierarchies and infinite regresses. They are sort of free floating entities.

He asserted

[Nearly Sane]

First cause is first cause in a causal chain. So it isn't outside the chain of causation. It is the uncaused cause or reason.
And it's the base in vertical hierarchies of being.

He asserted

[Outrider]

First cause is first cause in a causal chain. So it isn't outside the chain of causation. It is the uncaused cause or reason. And it's the base in vertical hierarchies of being.

It can be, but you haven't shown that it needs to be. Why can't the chain continue going back forever? Why does it need to be finite? Why does there need to be an uncaused cause?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It can be, but you haven't shown that it needs to be. Why can't the chain continue going back forever? Why does it need to be finite? Why does there need to be an uncaused cause?

O.

As I've said Contingency would be unaccounted for in an infinite regress of causation and since we know contingency is a thing, that is problematic.
There are some ways round it. It's a bit humean. There is no temporal chain of causation. Hierarchies of being would be created on a moment by moment basis. Contingency would be preserved.
Then again an infinite causal chain existed we would still have the question, Why an infinite causal chain and not an eternity of unrealised potential....or non existence...or a finite chain But I feel I've been through all of this already.

[Outrider]

As I've said Contingency would be unaccounted for in an infinite regress of causation and since we know contingency is a thing, that is problematic.

That doesn't mean anything. Yes, contingency would be 'unaccounted for', but if your expectation is for something accountable then you're begging the question - there's no justification here for why you're looking for an answer to 'why' rather than 'how'.

Then again an infinite causal chain existed we would still have the question, Why an infinite causal chain and not an eternity of unrealised potential....or non existence...or a finite chain But I feel I've been through all of this already.

You are begging the question. There may not be a 'why' underlying it all. If it's infinite, if it's always been, there is no 'prior' for there to have been a causal event, there was no 'first', there is no 'why' there is just cause and effect eternally.

You're right, we have been over this already, but mainly because you've still not provided anything which obviates this possibility.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That doesn't mean anything. Yes, contingency would be 'unaccounted for', but if your expectation is for something accountable then you're begging the question - there's no justification here for why you're looking for an answer to 'why' rather than 'how'.

You are begging the question. There may not be a 'why' underlying it all. If it's infinite, if it's always been, there is no 'prior' for there to have been a causal event, there was no 'first', there is no 'why' there is just cause and effect eternally.

You're right, we have been over this already, but mainly because you've still not provided anything which obviates this possibility.

O.

I think I've talked about disapplying the question why ( suspension of the PSR) saying it's where and when you do it. And you're doing it in a very suspicious place in the argument.
You've been given the reason why the necessary entity should exist...You've merely disapplied reason when the going got tough.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That doesn't mean anything. Yes, contingency would be 'unaccounted for', but if your expectation is for something There may not be a 'why' underlying it all. If it's infinite, if it's always been,

If what has always been? I Seem to be surrounded by things that haven't always been.

[jeremyp]

As I've said Contingency would be unaccounted for

The trouble is that, in your model, the necessary thing is unaccounted for. If being unaccounted for is not allowed, then your god needs to be accounted for.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The trouble is that, in your model, the necessary thing is unaccounted for. If being unaccounted for is not allowed, then your god needs to be accounted for.

No, All the contingency needs accounting for and the necessary entity accounts for it. It balances the books.
An infinite regress however requires something for nothing.
An analogy would be someone ordering a meal and instead of paying for it they keep ordering more and more dishes.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The trouble is that, in your model, the necessary thing is unaccounted for. If being unaccounted for is not allowed, then your god needs to be accounted for.

Are you saying then that without something settling the account the contingency IS accounted for? That's what an infinite regress model is trying to do.