the classics: the CA

1. Something exists.
2. Whatever exists, does so either necessarily or contingently.
3. It is impossible that only contingent things exist.
4. Therefore, there exists at least one necessary thing.
5. If there is a necessary thing, that thing is appropriately called 'God.'
6. Therefore God exists.

(revised 8/6/'18)


This version understands Necessity and contingency largely in causal terms. The necessity that creates the universe must be understood as eternal and uncaused for two reasons: (1) The impossibility of ICR[1], there has to be a first cause or nothing would ever come to be, (2) empirically we know the universe is not eternal. See the supporting material. Atheists will often argue that this kind of argument doesn't prove that God is the necessity that causes the universe. but being necessary and creator and primary  cause makes it the sources of all things we can rationally construe that as God.
Finally, even if the cosmological argument is sound or cogent, the difficult task remains to show, as part of natural theology, that the necessary being to which the cosmological argument concludes is the God of religion, and if so, of which religion. Rowe suggests that the cosmological argument has two parts, one to establish the existence of a first cause or necessary being, the other that this necessary being is God (1975: 6). It is unclear, however, whether the second contention is an essential part of the cosmological argument. Although Aquinas was quick to make the identification between God and the first mover or first cause, such identification seems to go beyond the causal reasoning that informs the argument (although one can argue that it is consistent with the larger picture of God and his properties that Aquinas paints in his Summae). Some (Rasmussen, O’Connor, Koons) have plowed ahead in developing this stage 2 process by showing how and what properties—simplicity, unity, omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, and so on—might follow from the concept of a necessary being. It “has implications that bring it into the neighborhood of God as traditionally conceived” (O’Connor 2008: 67).[2]
There's a problem in speaking of God as "a being" since it threatens to reduce God from infinite and omnipresent to a localized entity. This is a semantic problem and we can resole it by through understanding that God is the eternal necessary aspect of being. Being is a thing and God is "that thing" which is unbounded,eternal, and necessary aspect of being. This unbounded condition is implied by the nature of cosmological necessity.

 The eternal causal agent that gives rise to all existing things could not be itself caused since that would just create the necessity of another explanation (it would mean that thing is not the ultimate cause but is just another contingent thing). Being eternal and necessary means the ground of being. The contrast between human finitude and the infinite evokes the senses of the numinous or mystical experience which is the basis of all religion.[3] 




Of course we understand this eternal necessary aspect of being to be God not only because the infinite evokes the numinous but also because the notion that God is being itself is a major aspect of  Christian Theology.[4]


special note: mysterious stranger who knows Quantum field theory sets atheist critic straight,


https://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-truth-of-nothing-emerges.html





atheists try to deny contingency as a valid part of logic,
Arthur Prior used it in modal logic



Notes

[1] Infinite Causal Regression. For arguments against see: No Infinite Causal Regression

[2] Timothy O’Connor2008, Theism and Ultimate Explanation: the Necessary Shape of Contingency, London: Wiley-Blackwell.

[3] David Steindl-Rast,OSB, "The Mystical Core of Organized religion," Greatfulness, blog, 2018

[4] Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church NY: Penguin,1964.65











Comments

im-skeptical said…
So let's examine this argument.

First, we need to have a good definition of the word 'contingent' as is it used here. If we look at the dictionary, we see that there are several different meanings for the word. The first, and most common definition (according to Merriam Webster) is "dependent on or conditioned by something else". By that definition, a contingent thing would be depend on something else for its existence, and that seems to fit the way it is used in cosmological arguments, as we see in statement 3 that there must be something else which is the thing or things that contingent things depend upon for their existence. Another possible definition is "not logically necessary", which also seems to fit this argument, because all things must either be necessary or not necessary, and that fits with statement 2. But me must take note that those two definitions do nor mean the same thing. We need to choose one definition and stick with it, lest we be guilty of equivocation.

So let us proceed with the first of those definitions in mind. Statement 3 is true, according to that definition. But statement 2 does not follow from it, because that definition of 'contingent' does not logically imply that all things must be either contingent or necessary (and this is the argument that I made before). We can classify all things into 4 possible groups: Necessary and contingent, necessary and not contingent, not necessary and contingent, not necessary and not contingent. We can then eliminate the first of those, because it doesn't make logical sense. The second and third categories correspond to the way many people think of necessary and contingent things. The final category is still logically possible, too. Contingent things could be dependent for their existence on something that is not contingent, but that doesn't have to be a necessary thing. It would be what we call a 'brute fact'. And even though you might object that there are no 'brute facts', this is still a logical possibility consistent with our definition of 'contingent'. That would make statement 4 false, and the argument fails.

So what if we choose the alternate definition of 'contingent'? Statement 2 is true. But now, our definition of 'contingent' does not include an implied dependency. And that means that statement 3 doesn't follow from the definition. Logically, all things could be not necessary, and their existence may or may not have an explanation in terms of cause. Once again, we come to the realization that the existence of some brute fact - a thing that does not exist necessarily, but is also uncaused - is consistent with the definition of 'contingent' as it is being used here. That would make statement 4 false, and the argument fails.
1. Something exists.
2. Whatever exists, does so either necessarily or contingently.
3. It is impossible that only contingent things exist.
4. Therefore, there exists at least one necessary thing.
5. If there is a necessary thing, that thing is appropriately called 'God.'
6. Therefore God exists.



First, we need to have a good definition of the word 'contingent' as is it used here. If we look at the dictionary, we see that there are several different meanings for the word. The first, and most common definition (according to Merriam Webster) is "dependent on or conditioned by something else". By that definition, a contingent thing would be depend on something else for its existence, and that seems to fit the way it is used in cosmological arguments, as we see in statement 3 that there must be something else which is the thing or things that contingent things depend upon for their existence. Another possible definition is "not logically necessary", which also seems to fit this argument, because all things must either be necessary or not necessary, and that fits with statement 2. But me must take note that those two definitions do nor mean the same thing. We need to choose one definition and stick with it, lest we be guilty of equivocation.


agree so far

So let us proceed with the first of those definitions in mind. Statement 3 is true, according to that definition. But statement 2 does not follow from it, because that definition of 'contingent' does not logically imply that all things must be either contingent or necessary (and this is the argument that I made before).

Of escritoire doesn't because necessity is not part of contingency it's in contrast to it. Of course if we accept the notion of cause and effect we believe that all effects must have causes then contingent implies a necessity top contingency upon,



We can classify all things into 4 possible groups: Necessary and contingent, necessary and not contingent, not necessary and contingent, not necessary and not contingent. We can then eliminate the first of those, because it doesn't make logical sense. The second and third categories correspond to the way many people think of necessary and contingent things. The final category is still logically possible, too.

you drew u the chart wrong, the four possibilities for modes of existence: Necessity ,contingency, function and impossibility. Everything that exists and is produced by nature is in category two.

"fiction" is that which would be contingent if it exists but it doesn't such as purple dolphins and pink grass.God only fits in category 1 and so must exist





Contingent things could be dependent for their existence on something that is not contingent, but that doesn't have to be a necessary thing.

yes it does because those are the only two possibilities.the other two categories are non existent,

It would be what we call a 'brute fact'.

brute facts are contingent, you cannot show me a definition of brute fact that says it;s necessary



And even though you might object that there are no 'brute facts', this is still a logical possibility consistent with our definition of 'contingent'. That would make statement 4 false, and the argument fails.

the concept of BF is not something is uncased it's that we don't know the cause so they are contingent,

if you want to say God is BF then you still have to admit to Gpd. If BF existed necessarily it would be God. Excet Idont think Gd could be a BF bit that depoends upon my definitionof BF.

In answer to your argument based upon your definition i would just say you have not made a space for a necessity that is not God. So being BF does not rule out Gpd.




So what if we choose the alternate definition of 'contingent'? Statement 2 is true. But now, our definition of 'contingent' does not include an implied dependency. And that means that statement 3 doesn't follow from the definition.


Statement 2 does not rule out 1. I also argue the one making the argument set's the terms.An argument is based upon a certain understanding you can't pull the rug out from under it so unfairly. you first must argue why my definition is implausible.


Logically, all things could be not necessary, and their existence may or may not have an explanation in terms of cause.

wrong not if you accept that all effects have causes,


Once again, we come to the realization that the existence of some brute fact - a thing that does not exist necessarily, but is also uncaused -


that assumes an invalid definition it's been manipulated to side step logic.



is consistent with the definition of 'contingent' as it is being used here. That would make statement 4 false, and the argument fails.

that is a null set show me an example of anything that is not caused and is not necessary by definition if it is not caused it;s necessary. any product of nature is caused so you are going beyond nature


also quote the philosopher who gives your definition
in Brute Facts, U think you are starting with the common definition then taking it one step too far. BF = "a fact which has no explanation or which cannot be explained." "In contemporary philosophy, a brute fact is a fact that has no explanation" Ludwig Fahrbach. "Understanding brute facts," Synthese 145 (3):449 - 466 (2005). More narrowly, brute facts may instead be defined as those facts which cannot be explained (as opposed to simply having no explanation)
John Hospers, An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis (1997) p. 211

you are equating no explanation with no cause, That is not the case, they are still contingent,we just know the cause.
im-skeptical said…
re counter-argument A:

Of escritoire doesn't because necessity is not part of contingency it's in contrast to it. Of course if we accept the notion of cause and effect we believe that all effects must have causes then contingent implies a necessity top contingency upon
- Your objection is not based in the definition that as assumed in this argument. I gave two definitions (from the dictionary) that might be applicable in this argument - A: "dependent on or conditioned by something else", and B: "not logically necessary". I then gave two counter arguments, the first being based on definition A, and the second being based on definition B. Noe, as an bjection to my counter0argument A, you are assuming definition B. You are not following my argument.

you drew u the chart wrong, the four possibilities for modes of existence:
- Again, you are not following my argument. I was referring to four logical possibilities that are based on necessity and contingency (as defined for the purposes of this argument). We are talking about a logical syllogism here. If you want to make a logical argument, you need to follow the rules of logical argumentation. Define your terms. State your premises. Use logical operations to draw conclusions from those premises.

"fiction" is that which would be contingent if it exists but it doesn't such as purple dolphins and pink grass.God only fits in category 1 and so must exist
I would argue that God fits the definition of "fiction". But that's not relevant to the current argument I am making. If you want to make an argument to support your four modes of existence, that is a separate issue, and you need to defend it. But that's not what MY argument is about.

brute facts are contingent, you cannot show me a definition of brute fact that says it;s necessary
- Joe, if you look at the operative definition (A) of 'contingent' for this argument, it says nothing about necessity. Something could be either dependent on another thing (in which case it would be contingent), or not dependent (in which case it would be not contingent). But a non-contingent thing could still fail to be necessary. It could simple exist. This would still be consistent with the premises of this argument IF YOU ACCEPT DEFINITION A OF 'CONTINGENT'. Now, maybe you don't like definition A. That's fine. You can reject this entire argument on that basis. We have another definition. But this argument is based on definition A. If you accept that definition, then your cosmological argument is not valid, as I have explained.

the concept of BF is not something is uncased it's that we don't know the cause so they are contingent
- The major point of may argument is that there is another logical possibility. If you don't want to call it a 'brute fact', then just call it a logical possibility. You have NOT presented any argument ot reason for me to reject the notion that this is a logical possibility. Just claiming that it simply can't be isn't good enough, Joe. It IS a logical possibility. And I know that the only reason you deny it is because your religious beliefs depend on excluding that possibility. But I don't accept your religious beliefs. And one major reason for that is the denial of logic that they require.
im-skeptical said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
im-skeptical said…
In answer to your argument based upon your definition i would just say you have not made a space for a necessity that is not God. So being BF does not rule out Gpd.
- Again, you are not following my argument. I have not ruled out God. All I have done is to show that YOUR argument is not valid.


re counter-argument B:

wrong not if you accept that all effects have causes
- That's not what the premises to the argument say. Now we are using definition B ("not logically necessary"), and it says nothing about whether something must depend on another thing for its existence (which is causation). It is only about necessity. So under this definition, a contingent thing could be uncaused. i understand that you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want BOTH definitions to apply. You want contingent things to be both the logical complement of necessary things, and also dependent on something else for their existence. But I would point out to you that there is no such definition of 'contingent' in the dictionary. What you are doing is conflating two DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS of the word, and then basing the argument on that. This is what we call equivocation, and it is a logical fallacy. And I remind you of your opening comment about the use of equivocation: "agree so far". But that is exactly what you are doing.

Statement 2 does not rule out 1. I also argue the one making the argument set's the terms.An argument is based upon a certain understanding you can't pull the rug out from under it so unfairly. you first must argue why my definition is implausible.
- so if you want to use your own contrived definition for 'contingent' which is a combination of A and B above, you need to make the case for it, because it's not in the dictionary. It is contrived to make your argument work. And that's what we call BEGGING THE QUESTION.

wrong not if you accept that all effects have causes
- I don't accept it. Empirical observation tells us that there are things without any apparent cause.

that assumes an invalid definition it's been manipulated to side step logic
- I am not attempting to define 'brute fact' except as a simple recognition of the logical possibility that re refuse to recognize for religious reasons.

that is a null set show me an example of anything that is not caused and is not necessary by definition if it is not caused it;s necessary. any product of nature is caused so you are going beyond nature
- Virtual particles, Joe. As with all quantum events, there is no cause. And you can't show me a physicist who can identify a cause for them. You might say that we just don't know the cause, but to claim that there MUST be a cause is nothing more than a faith statement.

also quote the philosopher who gives your definition
- I didn't give a definition of 'brute fact'. My argument doesn't depend on it. As I said, what I'm talking about is simple a logical possibility that you refuse to recognize for purely religious reasons. I don't care what you call it. It is still a logical possibility. your refusal to recognize it is illogical.
Of escritoire doesn't because necessity is not part of contingency it's in contrast to it. Of course if we accept the notion of cause and effect we believe that all effects must have causes then contingent implies a necessity top contingency upon



- Your objection is not based in the definition that as assumed in this argument.

you a liar you have to re write argent caning the basic concept because you can't beat it logically. But It's not your argent to rewrite,the argument assumes the assumption O make you have no right to say anything in that regard,


I gave two definitions (from the dictionary) that might be applicable in this argument - A: "dependent on or conditioned by something else", and B: "not logically necessary". I then gave two counter arguments, the first being based on definition A, and the second being based on definition B. Noe, as an bjection to my counter0argument A, you are assuming definition B. You are not following my argument.


that does not mean jack shit the dictionary did not advance the argument, besides I already showed that your definition is compatible with my argument. necessity is grounding for contingencies which derive their existnece from dependence upon it,

you drew u the chart wrong, the four possibilities for modes of existence:


- Again, you are not following my argument. I was referring to four logical possibilities that are based on necessity and contingency (as defined for the purposes of this argument). We are talking about a logical syllogism here.

your argent sux, I disocoved the chart way back early days of my faith before gradate school, I showed you did not draw it up right, you did not represent the four possibilities for modes of being,

If you want to make a logical argument, you need to follow the rules of logical argumentation. Define your terms. State your premises. Use logical operations to draw conclusions from those premises.

you are so full of shit, that;s baby stuff that;not even graduate school level.

Joe:"fiction" is that which would be contingent if it exists but it doesn't such as purple dolphins and pink grass.God only fits in category 1 and so must exist
I would argue that God fits the definition of "fiction". But that's not relevant to the current argument I am making.

God cannot fit the category of fiction this is bull shit shows you know not the first thing abouit the concepts you are totally it he dark, Fiction is the none existent side of contingent God cannot be contingent so he can't can't be fiction, if he doesn't exist hes impossible,

Joe:brute facts are contingent, you cannot show me a definition of brute fact that says it;s necessary


- Joe, if you look at the operative definition (A) of 'contingent' for this argument, it says nothing about necessity.

I already answered that, It doesn't have to, you are using popular dictionary so it defines the word contingent not contingent in God arguments,

You have not quoted a single philosophical source I;ve quoted four.



Something could be either dependent on another thing (in which case it would be contingent), or not dependent (in which case it would be not contingent). But a non-contingent thing could still fail to be necessary.

Nope that; the way necessary is used in the CA it means not contingent, those are the only two choices, there is no third alternative,,


It could simple exist.

that; assign. nothing simple exists apart fro, necessity and contingency Look atthel

you have no example, you have not one example any such thing,



This would still be consistent with the premises of this argument IF YOU ACCEPT DEFINITION A OF 'CONTINGENT'.

If it's a product of nature it;s continent, so you support supernatural.


Now, maybe you don't like definition A. That's fine. You can reject this entire argument on that basis. We have another definition. But this argument is based on definition A. If you accept that definition, then your cosmological argument is not valid, as I have explained.


the fact that you have to change the basic terms shows you lost, you can;t beat the argent without changing its meaning

the concept of BF is not something is uncased it's that we don't know the cause so they are contingent


- The major point of may argument is that there is another logical possibility.

no it's not it;s still in the same dichotomy


If you don't want to call it a 'brute fact', then just call it a logical possibility. You have NOT presented any argument ot reason for me to reject the notion that this is a logical possibility.

Joe:nothing about the tern BF that makes it independent of contngency BF does not mean uncaused


Just claiming that it simply can't be isn't good enough, Joe. It IS a logical possibility. And I know that the only reason you deny it is because your religious beliefs depend on excluding that possibility. But I don't accept your religious beliefs. And one major reason for that is the denial of logic that they require.

Skep you are so childish, stop eating my. You asserted the you asserted that BF were outside the dichotomy of necessity and contingency which is idiotic, you have done absolutely nothing to prove it I; made several arguments that show it;s possible you have not answered one

(1)quoted Plantinga
(2) quoted two other
(3) argued you cah;t give me an example you haven't
(5) nature only produces contingents, so your BF are supernatural

Here are the arguments you made to prove that BF;s transited the dichotomy
In answer to your argument based upon your definition i would just say you have not made a space for a necessity that is not God. So being BF does not rule out Gpd.


- Again, you are not following my argument. I have not ruled out God. All I have done is to show that YOUR argument is not valid.

you have done nothing to show that it's invalid you can;t give me a reason youdo;t know what inlaid is you have no idea what invalid means in argument,.

you say I don;t follow your argument look,I said: So being BF does not rule out God.

to answer that you said "I have not ruled out God"

do you see what;s wrong with this picture?



re counter-argument B:

joeI have not ruled out Godwrong not if you accept that all effects have causes


- That's not what the premises to the argument say. Now we are using definition B ("not logically necessary"), and it says nothing about whether something must depend on another thing for its existence (which is causation).

No the argument assumes casual basis for the terms I said that up front,



It is only about necessity. So under this definition, a contingent thing could be uncaused. i understand that you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want BOTH definitions to apply. You want contingent things to be both the logical complement of necessary things, and also dependent on something else for their existence. But I would point out to you that there is no such definition of 'contingent' in the dictionary. What you are doing is conflating two DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS of the word, and then basing the argument on that. This is what we call equivocation, and it is a logical fallacy. And I remind you of your opening comment about the use of equivocation: "agree so far". But that is exactly what you are doing.

No don;t get to impose your own absurd idea designed to destroy the argument thatis not reasonedarguentit;s a con job.

In not waiting my time anymore, you are nowhere near my level of argumentation,




2/27/2019 10:26:00 AM
all the arguments you make are invalid because they are all predicated upon replacing my definition of contingent with yours, you have no reason for doing so. you don;t give a reason but the only one I can see is that if you stick with mine you lose the argument, that is not a valid reason.

My definition is based upon Popper who supersedes the dictionary definitions you give, because they are popular and Popper is a philosopher and an airtight.

(1) All Naturalistic Phenomena Are Consintingencies


Karl Popper:

"Empirical facts are facts which might not have been. Everything that belongs to space time is a contingent truth because it could have been otherwise, it is dependent upon the existence of something else for its' existence going all the way back to the Big Bang, which is itself contingent upon something."(Antony Flew, Philosophical Dictionary, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1979, 242.)


Tim Holt.

Something is “necessary” if it could not possibly have failed to exist. The laws of mathematics are often thought to be necessary. It is plausible to say that mathematical truths such as two and two making four hold irrespective of the way that the world is. Even if the world were radically different, it seems, two and two would still make four. God, too, is often thought to be a necessary being, i.e. a being that logically could not have failed to exist.
Something is “contingent” if it is not necessary, i.e. if it could have failed to exist. Most things seem to exist contingently. All of the human artefacts around us might not have existed; for each one of them, whoever made it might have decided not to do so. Their existence, therefore, is contingent. You and I, too, might not have existed; our respective parents might never have met, or might have decided not to have children, or might have decided to have children at a different time. Our existence, therefore, is contingent. Even the world around us seems to be contingent; the universe might have developed in such a way that none of the observable stars and planets existed at all.
The argument from contingency rests on the claim that the universe, as a whole, is contingent. It is not only the case, the argument suggests, that each of the things around is us contingent; it is also the case that the whole, all of those things taken together, is contingent. It might have been the case that nothing existed at all. The state of affairs in which nothing existed at all is a logically possible state of affairs, even though it is not the actual state of affairs.

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-cosmological-argument/the-argument-from-contingency/

The modal cosmological argument or “argument from contingency” is the argument from the contingency of the world or universe to the existence of God. The argument from contingency is the most prominent form of cosmological argument historically. The classical statements of the cosmological argument in the works of Plato, of Aquinas, and of Leibniz are generally statements of the modal form of the argument.
im-skeptical said…
you a liar you have to re write argent caning the basic concept because you can't beat it logically. But It's not your argent to rewrite,the argument assumes the assumption O make you have no right to say anything in that regard
- I did not re-write your argument. I analyzed it based on two different definitions of the word 'contingent'. You should have provided a definition in the first place. You still haven't done that. An argument that contains ambiguous terms is not a good argument.

that does not mean jack shit the dictionary did not advance the argument, besides I already showed that your definition is compatible with my argument. necessity is grounding for contingencies which derive their existnece from dependence upon it
- So you accept definition A? But you have also insisted on definition B. What you are doing is equivocation. One definition fits in one part of the argument, and the other definition applies in a different part of the argument. That's a logical fallacy.

by who? I asked you before you only gave the Duffy arithmetic the Duffy showed
I gave you multiple citations. You ignored all of it.

your argent sux, I disocoved the chart way back early days of my faith before gradate school, I showed you did not draw it up right, you did not represent the four possibilities for modes of being
- Get this through your thick skull: Your chart is not relevant to my analysis. I was talking about 4 logical possibilities, not your modes of existence.

you are so full of shit, that;s baby stuff that;not even graduate school level.
- This isn't school, Joe. If you can't make a valid argument, then you have no argument.

God cannot fit the category of fiction this is bull shit shows you know not the first thing abouit the concepts you are totally it he dark, Fiction is the none existent side of contingent God cannot be contingent so he can't can't be fiction, if he doesn't exist hes impossible
- Whatever. It's irrelevant to my analysis.

I already answered that, It doesn't have to, you are using popular dictionary so it defines the word contingent not contingent in God arguments
- Then give a definition so we know what your argument is saying. I'll base my analysis on that.

Nope that; the way necessary is used in the CA it means not contingent, those are the only two choices, there is no third alternative
- This is stupid. If you don't accept the standard definitions for words, then you need to explain clearly exactly what you mean. Why don't you just define your terms, and then we don't need to argue about what you mean when you use them?
im-skeptical said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
im-skeptical said…
that; assign. nothing simple exists apart fro, necessity and contingency Look atthel ... you have no example, you have not one example any such thing
- It's your presumption, and I DID give you an example that refutes it.

If it's a product of nature it;s continent, so you support supernatural.
- Just state your definition once and for all, and we don't need to keep up this stupid debate about what it means.

no it's not it;s still in the same dichotomy
- The point of my four logical possibilities was to show that there is another possibility that you refuse to recognize. I pointed out that it doesn't imply that it must be the case, but you still don't accept the logical possibility. You are being illogical.

Joe:nothing about the tern BF that makes it independent of contngency BF does not mean uncaused
- If something has a cause, then it wouldn't be a brute fact. The cause is the explanation for it. That is the same presumption made in the PSR.

Skep you are so childish, stop eating my. You asserted the you asserted that BF were outside the dichotomy of necessity and contingency which is idiotic, you have done absolutely nothing to prove it
- Get this through your thick skull: I am not making a proof argument. I am pointing out that YOUR argument ignores a logical possibility, and YOU have done nothing to demonstrate that it is not a possibility.

No the argument assumes casual basis for the terms I said that up front
- Just state your definition once and for all, and we don't need to keep up this stupid debate about what it means.

No don;t get to impose your own absurd idea designed to destroy the argument thatis not reasonedarguentit;s a con job.
- Why did you posy this argument, Joe?

My definition is based upon Popper who supersedes the dictionary definitions you give, because they are popular and Popper is a philosopher and an airtight.
- You cite both Popper and Holt. If you look at what they say, you will see that Popper uses definition A ("it is dependent upon the existence of something else for its' existence"), and Holt uses definition B ("Something is “contingent” if it is not necessary"). They are not using the same definition. Note that Popper's definition does not exclude the possibility of something that is neither dependent on another thing nor necessary. He does say that all things in the universe are contingent, but he's not accounting for quantum objects and events that are not dependent on any other thing. And the big bang itself is thought to be a quantum event that is not dependent on any other thing. Holt's definition is based solely on necessity. It makes no implication of dependency. Your argument conflates the two different definitions. That's equivocation.
m-skeptical said...
you a liar you have to re write argent caning the basic concept because you can't beat it logically. But It's not your argent to rewrite,the argument assumes the assumption O make you have no right to say anything in that regard


- I did not re-write your argument. I analyzed it based on two different definitions of the word 'contingent'. You should have provided a definition in the first place. You still haven't done that. An argument that contains ambiguous terms is not a good argument.

Obviously you did, you imposed your own definitions that changed the concept I employed. You never demonstrated any reason why your definitions should be used


Joethat does not mean jack shit the dictionary did not advance the argument, besides I already showed that your definition is compatible with my argument. necessity is grounding for contingencies which derive their existnece from dependence upon it


- So you accept definition A? But you have also insisted on definition B. What you are doing is equivocation. One definition fits in one part of the argument, and the other definition applies in a different part of the argument. That's a logical fallacy.

I id not insist on B I said several times it is only valid as an addendum to A I didnot accept A I said it was basically in line with my view that doesn't mean I accept it as my definition,you are so dishonest



Joeby who? I asked you before you only gave the Duffy arithmetic the Duffy showed
I gave you multiple citations. You ignored all of it.

your argent sux, I disocoved the chart way back early days of my faith before gradate school, I showed you did not draw it up right, you did not represent the four possibilities for modes of being


- Get this through your thick skull: Your chart is not relevant to my analysis. I was talking about 4 logical possibilities, not your modes of existence.

get this through your thick skull dumb ass the person advancing the argument get's to define the terms, the other guy (that's you) has to show why that definition is no good, you have said nothing about it


you are so full of shit, that;s baby stuff that;not even graduate school level.


- This isn't school, Joe. If you can't make a valid argument, then you have no argument.


you dumb ass you have don't even know what invalid means,you have no concept. Nor have you made an arguent




2/28/2019 08:51:00 AM Delete
God cannot fit the category of fiction this is bull shit shows you know not the first thing about the concepts you are totally it he dark, Fiction is the none existent side of contingent God cannot be contingent so he can't can't be fiction, if he doesn't exist hes impossible



- Whatever. It's irrelevant to my analysis.


NO!!!@ It makes a huge difference that you don't understand that shows you don';t know shit about God talk!!!

JoeI already answered that, It doesn't have to, you are using popular dictionary so it defines the word contingent not contingent in God arguments

you removed this from context so it makes no senes now

- Then give a definition so we know what your argument is saying. I'll base my analysis on that.

Nope that; the way necessary is used in the CA it means not contingent, those are the only two choices, there is no third alternative



- This is stupid. If you don't accept the standard definitions for words, then you need to explain clearly exactly what you mean. Why don't you just define your terms, and then we don't need to argue about what you mean when you use them?


That is always what people say who lack advanced knowledge of a specialized subject matter,. you have no training and no knowledge of the subject matter. You are not using standard definitions you are using popular definitions but you need ot use those common to the field of philosophy of religion and God arguments; contingent is a very basic concpet it's not advanced but it does have a different spin on God talk than in popular parlance,,
another source defining contingency in terms causality

A contingent being (a being such that if it exists, it could have not-existed or could cease to exist) exists. This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence. ... Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.Jul 13, 2004
Cosmological Argument (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)



https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

also


Cosmological Argument (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

by B Reichenbach - ‎2004 - ‎Cited by 64 - ‎Related articles
Jul 13, 2004 - A contingent being (a being such that if it exists, it could have not-existed or could cease to exist) exists. This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence. ... Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

The Cosmological Argument
www2.oberlin.edu/faculty/mwallace/CosmologicalArg.html
Jun 25, 2008 - This means that it relies on our experience of the world--beyond the tools of ... that some things are caused to come into existence by other things, and that ... Aquinas supposes that not everything can be contingent in this way, ...
im-skeptical said…
Obviously you did, you imposed your own definitions that changed the concept I employed. You never demonstrated any reason why your definitions should be used
- I said you need to define your terms. And if you don't, I am free to use definitions that are part of the English language, according to the dictionary. I notice that you cite (below) an example from SEP: " (a being such that if it exists, it could have not-existed or could cease to exist)" This goes to show what I have said. That definition was included in the argument. That's what you should do, too.

I id not insist on B I said several times it is only valid as an addendum to A I didnot accept A I said it was basically in line with my view that doesn't mean I accept it as my definition,you are so dishonest
- Talk about being dishonest - if you refuse to provide a clear definition, it is probably because your argument depends on equivocation.

get this through your thick skull dumb ass the person advancing the argument get's to define the terms, the other guy (that's you) has to show why that definition is no good, you have said nothing about it
- Then give us a clear definition.

you dumb ass you have don't even know what invalid means,you have no concept. Nor have you made an arguent
- An invalid argument is one that does not adhere to the rules of logic. Like yours.

NO!!!@ It makes a huge difference that you don't understand that shows you don';t know shit about God talk!!!
- MY argument did not depend on how YOU define your modes of existence. MY argument was about logical possibilities. Which YOU refuse to accept.

Nope that; the way necessary is used in the CA it means not contingent, those are the only two choices, there is no third alternative
- That is consistent with (what I called) definition B. But definition A (which you say you have accepted) does NOT imply B.

That is always what people say who lack advanced knowledge of a specialized subject matter,.
- Keep up the pretenses, by all means. The example you cited from SEP makes my point, because it gives the definition right in the argument. Most real philosophers will agree that if there is any doubt, defining your terms is an essential part of logical argumentation.
Obviously you did, you imposed your own definitions that changed the concept I employed. You never demonstrated any reason why your definitions should be used


- I said you need to define your terms. And if you don't, I am free to use definitions that are part of the English language, according to the dictionary.


that is a dodge because you can't deal with the logic of the argument,

(1) We;ve had this argent before many times
(2) I said up front it's the causal sense,
(3) I said commonly accepted sense
(4) I said YOUR FIRST DEFINITION IS HARMONIOUS WITH MINE. that should tell you everything you need
(5) you try to draw millage from your A def then switch to B when it will help your argument but you can't show a reason



I notice that you cite (below) an example from SEP: " (a being such that if it exists, it could have not-existed or could cease to exist)" This goes to show what I have said. That definition was included in the argument. That's what you should do, too.

JoeI did not insist on B I said several times it is only valid as an addendum to A I did not accept A I said it was basically in line with my view that doesn't mean I accept it as my definition,you are so dishonest


- Talk about being dishonest - if you refuse to provide a clear definition, it is probably because your argument depends on equivocation.

stop playing your stupid game. you know damn well you are only hiding behind that technicality,

Joeget this through your thick skull dumb ass the person advancing the argument get's to define the terms, the other guy (that's you) has to show why that definition is no good, you have said nothing about it


- Then give us a clear definition.

No you tell me why what I said up front is not clear enough. Here is how I began the original post:
________quote:
This version understands Necessity and contingency largely in causal terms. The necessity that creates the universe must be understood as eternal and uncaused for two reasons: (1) The impossibility of ICR[1], there has to be a first cause or nothing would ever come to be, (2) empirically we know the universe is not eternal. See the supporting material. Atheists will often argue that this kind of argument doesn't prove that God is the necessity that causes the universe. but being necessary and creator and primary cause makes it the sources of all things we can rationally construe that as God.



...The eternal causal agent that gives rise to all existing things could not be itself caused since that would just create the necessity of another explanation (it would mean that thing is not the ultimate cause but is just another contingent thing). Being eternal and necessary means the ground of being. The contrast between human finitude and the infinite evokes the senses of the numinous or mystical experience which is the basis of all religion.

end of quote_____________




Joeyou dumb ass you have don't even know what invalid means,you have no concept. Nor have you made an argument

- An invalid argument is one that does not adhere to the rules of logic. Like yours.


I started defining my terms quote what I said a just above here, from the OP. But defining terms is not a rule of logic; an argent is not invalid for want of defining terms, you show me what in my arugent does not accord with rules of Logic.



JoeNO!!!@ It makes a huge difference that you don't understand that shows you don';t know shit about God talk!!!




- MY argument did not depend on how YOU define your modes of existence. MY argument was about logical possibilities. Which YOU refuse to accept.

that is total bull shit third Time I'said it, you got the possibilities wrong,the only one;s that exist are: necessity, impossibility, contingency, and fiction, I fixed your mistake how many times i Have to say it.??

JoeNope that; the way necessary is used in the CA it means not contingent, those are the only two choices, there is no third alternative



- That is consistent with (what I called) definition B. But definition A (which you say you have accepted) does NOT imply B.

no it's not bu even so nothing in my argument violates it,


JoeThat is always what people say who lack advanced knowledge of a specialized subject matter,.



- Keep up the pretenses, by all means.

that's what they say when you point out what they say



The example you cited from SEP makes my point, because it gives the definition right in the argument. Most real philosophers will agree that if there is any doubt, defining your terms is an essential part of logical argumentation.

I defined the terms,read it above no definition is not part of declaring valid or invalid,


"A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. ... In effect, an argument is valid if the truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion.truth of the conclusion."
--Validity and Soundness | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
https://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/


I can see how a term being unclear would make a difference here but use of contingent is so simple there;s no way it;s unclear, not presenting a formal definition up front doesn;t make it invliad,I media ut clear what the terms means every time you brought it up. you also ignored the paragraph at the where I describe what ideas the argumemt is about,stop hiding behind technicalities and admit you can;t answer the argumemt
im-skeptical said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
im-skeptical said…
(2) I said up front it's the causal sense
- OK, fine. That is definition A. Then stick with that definition.

(5) you try to draw millage from your A def then switch to B when it will help your argument but you can't show a reason
- No, Joe. I presented the second argument in case you prefer definition B. The problem is that you keep switching back and forth between them.

stop playing your stupid game. you know damn well you are only hiding behind that technicality
- The "technicality" is the equivocation of your argument, which is a logical fallacy.

that is total bull shit third Time I'said it, you got the possibilities wrong,the only one;s that exist are: necessity, impossibility, contingency, and fiction, I fixed your mistake how many times i Have to say it.??
- MY argument is based on four logical possibilities conditioned on contingency and necessity: 1: necessary and contingent, 2: necessary and not contingent, 3: not necessary and contingent, and 4: not necessary and not contingent. Those are the four logical possibilities, and it doesn't matter how you define your modes of existence. If you choose to define your modes of existence in such a way that it excludes a logical possibility, then you are leaving out something. in particular, you stubbornly and obtusely refuse to recognize the possibility of non-necessary and non-contingent. We can both agree that the first of those categories should be excluded, because anything that is dependent on something else is not necessary. But we disagree on the last of those categories. An existential brute fact could be uncaused, and also not necessary, but you exclude it for no reason other than religious belief. There ARE uncaused things in our world (as far as we can tell). You just stubbornly refuse to accept even the possibility.

I can see how a term being unclear would make a difference here but use of contingent is so simple there;s no way it;s unclear, not presenting a formal definition up front doesn;t make it invliad,I media ut clear what the terms means every time you brought it up. you also ignored the paragraph at the where I describe what ideas the argumemt is about,stop hiding behind technicalities and admit you can;t answer the argumemt
- My counter-argument A is predicated on your acceptance of definition A. The problem, as I have said, is that you don't really accept A. You insert definition B when your argument needs it. That's equivocation.

Joe(2) I said up front it's the causal sense

- OK, fine. That is definition A. Then stick with that definition.

No it's not definition A it;s my definition. you never offered a justification for talking over the definitions since I did define my terms. you can't follow an argumemt and you don't read,

Joe(5) you try to draw millage from your A def then switch to B when it will help your argument but you can't show a reason


- No, Joe. I presented the second argument in case you prefer definition B. The problem is that you keep switching back and forth between them.

why didn't you just read what I said about the terms up front in the original argument?

Joestop playing your stupid game. you know damn well you are only hiding behind that technicality


- The "technicality" is the equivocation of your argument, which is a logical fallacy.


I don't you know what equivocation means,

Joethat is total bull shit third Time I'said it, you got the possibilities wrong,the only one;s that exist are: necessity, impossibility, contingency, and fiction, I fixed your mistake how many times i Have to say it.??

- MY argument is based on four logical possibilities conditioned on contingency and necessity: 1: necessary and contingent, 2: necessary and not contingent, 3: not necessary and contingent, and 4: not necessary and not contingent. Those are the four logical possibilities, and it doesn't matter how you define your modes of existence.

(1)you got them wrong
(2)you don;t show how they beat the argument,






If you choose to define your modes of existence in such a way that it excludes a logical possibility, then you are leaving out something. in particular, you stubbornly and obtusely refuse to recognize the possibility of non-necessary and non-contingent.


Because that is not a possibility it;s a contradiction in the logic of model being/

The two most fundamental categories next to exist or not exist are necessity and contingency, That's all there is. There is no ground between necessity and contingency there nothing that is neither, that is documented by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Phil.


______Qute
"It is commonly accepted that there are two sorts of existent entities: those that exist but could have failed to exist, and those that could not have failed to exist. Entities of the first sort are contingent beings; entities of the second sort are necessary beings."

Matthew Davidson,"God and Other Necessary Beings", (Spring 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
_______________close quote

We can both agree that the first of those categories should be excluded, because anything that is dependent on something else is not necessary. But we disagree on the last of those categories. An existential brute fact could be uncaused,

Why should it be? just because don't we know the cause? If it is naturalistic it has to be caused.the only things other than God that are not caused are abstractionsshow me one,you don't have an example. and your categories are contradictions.
"2: necessary and not contingent," those are the same thing. anything necessary is not contingent, all naturalistic things are contingent, "3: not necessary and contingent," they cant be both at the same time so I assume you mean either or, thiat;s my ting so that;s in line with my argument.



"4: not necessary and not contingent."the only example you give is sub atomic particles, they don;t cause the universe, they don't negate my argument, but it;s not proven they are really causeless.Anything not necessary is contingent,srr Stanford abve




JoeI can see how a term being unclear would make a difference here but use of contingent is so simple there;s no way it;s unclear, not presenting a formal definition up front doesn;t make it invliad,I media ut clear what the terms means every time you brought it up. you also ignored the paragraph at the where I describe what ideas the argumemt is about,stop hiding behind technicalities and admit you can;t answer the argumemt


- My counter-argument A is predicated on your acceptance of definition A. The problem, as I have said, is that you don't really accept A. You insert definition B when your argument needs it. That's equivocation.


You lying when you say I insert B you brought B into the damn thing! I had nothing to do with B. that's your baby I made my own definition up front had nothing to do with B/ I subsumed both A and B into my argument by showing they don;t contract my ideas,that means they don;t hurt my argument. But I never did anything with B other than showing it did not contradict my argumemt,
im-skeptical said…
No it's not definition A it;s my definition. you never offered a justification for talking over the definitions since I did define my terms. you can't follow an argumemt and you don't read
- There is a way to resolve this issue. Since we disagree about the meaning of 'contingent' (despite the fact that I got my definitions directly from the dictionary), you can restate tour argument without using the word 'contingent'. Then there will be no dispute about the meaning of a word. If you mean 'not necessary', then say that. If you mean 'caused' then say that. Then we can get a better understanding of what your argument actually means.

why didn't you just read what I said about the terms up front in the original argument?
- Yes. I did. You said you understand 'contingency' in terms of causation. And I keep telling you that your argument does not assume that definition consistently. In particular, statement 4 assumes that something that is not contingent must be necessary. Don't be so obtuse, Joe. You are switching your definition in mid-stream from causal terms (definition A) to necessity (definition B).

I don't you know what equivocation means
- You are the one who uses it in your argument.

(1)you got them wrong
- No. Those are the (only) four logical possibilities. What you fail to grasp is the difference between logical possibility and metaphysical possibility. This is something that a philosophical genius such as yourself should be well aware of, but you don't have a clue. Read about it. Your four modes of existence express a metaphysical view, but only if one accepts your theistic metaphysical view as reality. Nevertheless, the logical possibilities remain as I have stated.

(2)you don;t show how they beat the argument
- You didn't read (or don't understand) my counter-arguments.

Because that is not a possibility it;s a contradiction in the logic of model being
- You need to learn the difference between logical and metaphysical possibility. Phil201, undergrad level.

You lying when you say I insert B you brought B into the damn thing!
- I showed you. Read what I say. Learn some actual philosophy, and stop being such a sophist.
im-skeptical said...
No it's not definition A it;s my definition. you never offered a justification for talking over the definitions since I did define my terms. you can't follow an argumemt and you don't read



- There is a way to resolve this issue.

Yes you could listen to people who know what they are talking about such as the philosophers I quote,


Since we disagree about the meaning of 'contingent' (despite the fact that I got my definitions directly from the dictionary),

Your dictionary does not come close to outweighing the authorities I quoted philosophers and philosophical involuntariness.


you can restate tour argument without using the word 'contingent'. Then there will be no dispute about the meaning of a word. If you mean 'not necessary', then say that. If you mean 'caused' then say that. Then we can get a better understanding of what your argument actually means.

I already put up a version I already had without the word contingent

Joewhy didn't you just read what I said about the terms up front in the original argument?



- Yes. I did. You said you understand 'contingency' in terms of causation. And I keep telling you that your argument does not assume that definition consistently.

yes clearly it does here we go one more time, both versions collapse into each other, One is a rarefaction of the other,: The causally oriented version of N/c is a maker for the broadly logical or metaphysical version. I put up a post for Monday exampling.


In particular, statement 4 assumes that something that is not contingent must be necessary. Don't be so obtuse, Joe. You are switching your definition in mid-stream from causal terms (definition A) to necessity (definition B).


Skep you do not understand the basic ideas. focusing on causal forms of contingency is not a contradiction to the larger notion of necessity. They are both bound up in the same concept. Necessity = that which cannot fail or cease to be, contingency is conversely that which can fail or cease to be. But one of the major ways that something could fail or cease to be is if the circumstances that cause it had changed. That's just another version of the same idea.

did you read that? DID YOU UNDERSTAND IT? WHY do i doubt you read it?




I don't you know what equivocation means

- You are the one who uses it in your argument.

Obviously I know what the word means I don;t understand why you are using it,

(1)you got them wrong


- No. Those are the (only) four logical possibilities.


you loused them. 2 was a contradiction of itself, I bet you didn;t read my answers

that it I wont waste any more time on your stupidity you wont even read what I write.



What you fail to grasp is the difference between logical possibility and metaphysical possibility.

that is irrelevant those are just subdivisions of my four categories

This is something that a philosophical genius such as yourself should be well aware of, but you don't have a clue.


you dumb ass you didn;t read my corrections of your stupid categories did you?


-Read about it. Your four modes of existence express a metaphysical view, but only if one accepts your theistic metaphysical view as reality. Nevertheless, the logical possibilities remain as I have stated.

that is bull shit, all you are saying is you refuse to accept the truth of God even though logic points to it. you don't have to start out believing in God to accept necessity and contingency, that you wind up doing so if you accept it is just the way logic works,

my four categories work weather you believe in God or not.

(2)you don;t show how they beat the argument


- You didn't read (or don't understand) my counter-arguments.

nt only did I read it I showed how they contradict.

Because that is not a possibility it;s a contradiction in the logic of model being

- You need to learn the difference between logical and metaphysical possibility. Phil201, undergrad level.

you can;t cover up a contradiction by claiming it as "metaphysical.",, you have no understanding,

You lying when you say I insert B you brought B into the damn thing!


- I showed you. Read what I say. Learn some actual philosophy, and stop being such a sophist.

your attitude is the worst, as long as you are not willing to listen or to read what the other guy says ,you will never get it,

Popular posts from this blog

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

Exodus 22:18 - Are Followers of God to Kill Witches?

Revamping and New Articles at the CADRE Site

The Bogus Gandhi Quote

Discussing Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Why Christian Theism Is Almost Certainly True: A Reply to Cale Nearing

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Scientifically Documented Miracles

The Criteria of Embarrassment and Jesus' Baptism in the Gospel of Mark

The Meaning of the Manger