- #1
- 4,652
- 37
My teacher presented us with this version of the cosmological argument:
1. Something is contingent.
2. If something is contingent, its ultimate cause is either self-caused, uncaused, itself merely contingent, or a necessary being.
3. Its ultimate cause is either self-caused, uncaused, itself merely contingent, or a necessary being.
4. Its ultimate cause is not self-caused.
5. Its ultimate cause is not uncaused.
6. Its ultimate cause is not merely contingent.
7. Its ultimate cause is a necessary being.
The question I have is regarding premise 6. What does it mean for something to be "merely contingent"? In the first premise, "something is contingent" it is meant that there is something here that did not have to be here.
So in premise 6, is this "merely contingent" ultimate cause that is being ruled out to be thought of as a thing that has existed forever, or are we talking about a member of an infinitely backward-regressing series?
I hope that made some sense. Thanks in advance for your help.
1. Something is contingent.
2. If something is contingent, its ultimate cause is either self-caused, uncaused, itself merely contingent, or a necessary being.
3. Its ultimate cause is either self-caused, uncaused, itself merely contingent, or a necessary being.
4. Its ultimate cause is not self-caused.
5. Its ultimate cause is not uncaused.
6. Its ultimate cause is not merely contingent.
7. Its ultimate cause is a necessary being.
The question I have is regarding premise 6. What does it mean for something to be "merely contingent"? In the first premise, "something is contingent" it is meant that there is something here that did not have to be here.
So in premise 6, is this "merely contingent" ultimate cause that is being ruled out to be thought of as a thing that has existed forever, or are we talking about a member of an infinitely backward-regressing series?
I hope that made some sense. Thanks in advance for your help.