The universe is contingent

  • Thread starter Eh
  • Start date


....Anyway, conclusion of initial argument is clearly biased, non-sequitir, attributing non-contingency to some creature. As you found structure of the argument interesting to discuss, I strip off that biased approach and try to discuss whats left, which is no theologian argument.
Of course it is biased, but I've already said numerous times that aspect is irrelevant. Does the argument establish that the need for a non contingent being in the first place? I say no because the premise that the contingency of of physical objects would bring about their nonexistence is a baseless assertion. That premise sinks the argument.

Why you've gone defensive? Concept of triangle is contingent on existence of 3 angles, 3 differentiable points. Are you saying that 3 pointparticles in force equilibrium are not facing triangle?
Point particles require a background of space anyway, so I don't see your point there. The concept however, by definition is contingent upon a mind.

1. You defined "contingent" as ability to "vanish", stop existence.
Yes, I defined it as something that has the ability to cease to exist. And numerous times, I showed that "change" into something else is a necessary part of this. It is the theologians, and those using the contingency argument fail to understand this point. They are the ones who fail to to recognize that the observation that all physical things fail to exist includes this aspect. But notice that defining existence as something other than instantiation is not where the argument goes wrong.

The concept of cessation is where things fall apart, not existence, abstractions or anything else.

2. you assert that when object changes, original object ceases to exist, ie. vanishes. You equate this with contingency. Ie. "change" = ability to vanish, cease to exist.
Changing into something else and ceasing to exist are part of it, so what?

An example: String A (a photon) changes into String B. String A no longer exists, ie. String A is no longer instantiated in reality.

3. then you say, "things don't just vanish", which is assertion unrelated to the consistency of argument, but is injection from empirical experience.
Unless the individual reading the post cannot read or has a learning disability, they would have noticed that I've already shown countless times that the change into something else and vanishing cannot be seperated. Transforming into something else and vanishing, and vanishing alone are not equivalent. All premises here are based on empirical experience.

You use this to prove that "change" is valid argument to show that "things" cease to exist and at the same time do not.
Err, no. I showed that the postulate that an object ceasing to exist is always replaced by something else renders the argument impotent. That is hardly the same as saying things cease to exist and do not at the same time.

And I honestly can't see why you are having difficulty with that.

Either you accept that change is vanishing of thing, or you accept that change has nothing to do with contingency.
Surely by now you can tell the difference between vanshing alone and changing+vanishing.

If you accept former, you can't include "things don't just vanish" into your argument, as they constantly do, and there is no logical reason why one of changes couldn't be just vanishing from existence.
Actually, the whole reason the theologians argument fails is because they ignore the fact that ceasing to exist also includes a transformation. The premise that all things in the physical world cease to exist is not a logical statement on it's own right. It's a statement based on our limited observations of the world, which so far have shown that the things we can observe do not last forever. But this limited observation includes the transformation of these same things, ie. the conservation of energy.

Then, change is either continuum or discrete events. If its continuum, how do you define moment when previous state vanishes?
The same way you define a point on a plane. But at any rate, it seems like another typical attempt to drag the thread off topic. Pinpointing events is irrelevant to whether or not the original argument is valid.

Again, either change has nothing to do with contingency, or basically contingent things "do not exist".
You can say it as many times as you like, but it won't make it true. Your conclusion here, has not been supported by the slightest bit in the rest of your post above.

Lets make a translation.

P1: The physical universe exists ("does not vanish"), made up of vanishing parts

P2: Since these vanishing parts will eventually vanish, given enough "change/non-vanishing/time/existence" the universe as a whole should vanish.

P3: The physical universe exists (does not vanish).

Conclusion: Thus, something non vanishing exists which created the physical (and vanishing) universe. We will call this non vanishing being God.
Ok so far...

1) there is no reason to call that non contingent entity "being".
And that's quite irrelevant.

2) there is no reasoning justifying that whats existing was created.
Actually, that's the whole point of the argument. If all things will eventually exist, there is no way for the universe to have existed forever. But I've already demonstrated the point where this fails.

3) as you've showed, there is no direct correlation between vanishing parts and vanishing of universe.
Because the conclusion: Given enough time, everything would fail to exist does not hold up. Premise 1 is correct but they have missed a crucial part of it.

4) there are mixed meanings if term "exist", physical existence implies change/time/contingency, while "existence" of non-contingent being implies timelessness, no change. Mutually contradictory meanings of existence.
No, you just given 2 kinds of things. The instantiation of either a timeless thing or physical, changing universe are both logically consistent.

5) either meaning of "existence" is inapplicable to the other. The very concept of "vanishing" implies time, and event.
Yes, we've already established that time and contingency are inseperable, almost at the very start of the thread.

There is no meaning in even considering non-contingence of something that is IN time.
Obviously. You win a gold sticker.

And there is very serious question about meaning of "exists" as applied to non-contingent, timeless.
No there isn't. Exists still works as instantiation.
Last edited:

Related Threads for: The universe is contingent

  • Last Post

Hot Threads