The nature of material reality, which is contingent and transient, gives us a reasonable basis for believing in the necessary being, which is essential and eternal, from which material reality initially came.
The standard cosmological model doesn't show that the universe had a beginning. th-cam.com/video/FgpvCxDL7q4/w-d-xo.html Even if it did it could be the case that there is something outside of the universe which is necessary and not an intelligent being.
Not necessarily (no pun intended). The universe could theoretically have existed eternally but still be contingent on something else for its existence. Contingency just means there's nothing in the nature of the thing itself that guarantees it HAS to exist.
Based on Josh's explanation, I think he is making an argument from induction to counter the fallacy of composition, e.g. consider a group of two things, it is dependent, three things, it is dependent, etc. to infinity. Therefore any group of size n things will be dependent
Hi Dr. Rasmussen would love to hear your response- I am currently in my journey to seek truth! Would a reply to objection #1 be: There is indeed a super big thing that contains all contingent things and that is the universe. That universe is itself contingent because 1) we can conceive of a universe that different, with different laws of physics, different corks 2) the universe is expanding it is changing- what is that change dependant on? 3) we can conceive that the event of big bang didn't happen and universe not coming into existence
One way by ibn sina (11th century) is to say that, the whole set is dependant on the parts to be what it is ontologically. If the parts didn't exist, then the whole wouldn't. You could re-arrange the whole. Therefore the whole isn't neccasary
@@radirandombut is a whole is different thing than the parts that bring it to the existence it is not clear ı think and also in the mereology there is this position called mereological nihilism which states that there is no”wholes” in reality rather just the tiniest particles arranged in a way and we call the aggregate of these particles “wholes”
@ahmetbaykoc1087 The whole is defined by the existence of the parts Also, mereological nihilism doesn't work to refute this argument as it is a merely semantic way to only look at things that are metaphysical undivisable or uncomposed. We can still concieve of a modality and reality of the arrangement of the small particles or things.
@@radirandom thanks for the reply bro İ find the argument successful and think that the chain of contingents must stop at a neccesary being. But i want to understand the argument even in the infinite chain of contingent being so help me clarify in my head in the possible scenario in infinite chain. So the ‘cause’ of this chain is its contingent parts so why further search for an external cause for the chain itself ? Is the arrangement of the parts is important since the formal cause of aristotle is not widely accepted among modern analytic philosophers how do we know ‘the arrangement’ of parts could ve been different and needs an external cause. Thanks again mate
@ahmetbaykoc1087 Firstly asalamualaykum, are you muslim? Turkish? Second point when I say it could be arranged differently , that is another way to say that this exact layout or thing that exists isn't neccasary and we could concieve of another chain instead of this one for example where a b c doesn't exist. To help you get the infinite regress argument here it is: This is as the infinite series itself depends on its memebers to be what it is. The ontological status of the infinite series is dependant on the existence of all infinite contingent parts together. Meaning that if we removed all of them from the set or even removed 5, the series would not exist or would change. To show his numerically; Let's say we have a contingent set called £ where , A B C D ... all the way to infinite are individual members. Then by defintion, all members of £ must be contingent and cannot be neccasary as that would not be in the series. Just like if I gave an infinite set $ where it is all odd numbers 1 to infinite. All members by defintion must be odd no matter how close we get to infinite. Now by defintion, anything that is contingent must depend on or be caused by something else external to it. Therefore all infinite members of the series £ must have that modal status to depend on or be caused by something else external to it. We will call this modal status م . If all infinite members in £ must have the modal status م, therefore there must be something external to every single member of the infinite series that it relies on outside of the series £ . The things that all infinite members no matter how far you go back with modal status م depend on cannot be in the set £ as we already defined the totality of the series with the modal status م therefore entailing a contridiction. So by defintion, the other logical alternative to everything with the modal status م which by defintion is in the series £ , is something without modal status م and therefore not in the series £. To finally conlude, the entire series £ is dependant on something outside of the set or else you fall into contridiction.
There seem to be a lot of objections to the objections that rely on inductive reasoning about how we experience things in everyday life. That’s generally fine, I don’t have a problem with induction as that’s how most of us operate in the world. But we can’t apply our experiences to events we’ve never even come close to observing. We can’t say we don’t experience something coming from nothing, because we don’t interact with nothing. It’s a non-starter to approach the question on an inductive basis. Likewise, we shouldn’t be making inductive arguments about the “beginning” of our local presentation of the universe. We don’t interact with entire universes as an outside observer like we do with “iPhones”. Also - how often do we interact with something we *know* to be necessary?
you don't wana reason about it and you can life happily. that fine. but what if i ask you to make a judgement, regardless. what would your conclusion be. not base on indeuction, but even based on your pure logical deduction.
That' why they were chosen. They are strawman objections. The Contingency argument is full on garbage, but this channel is not going to tell you what the real problems are.
@@johnanderson9330 It assumes its own conclusion. It asserts that the universe is "contingent" without justification. Contingency of the universe is a conclusion disguised as a premise. And, as with all cosmological arguments, it's special pleading. It asserts an absolute rule ("Nothing can cause itself to exist"), then makes an immediate exception to that rule for "God" without explaining how or why "God" is exempt but not the universe. It doesn't even give a coherent definition for "God." Also, it needs to be explained what is meant by "universe." Does that mean just our own local universe or everything that may exist in a larger cosmos or multiverse? A multiverse needs no more beginning or origin or "cause" than a God does. We don't even know that our own universe did not have some form of existence before the Big Bang. We can see that the universe expanded (and continues to expand) from an original singularity (the Big Bang was not literally an explosion, it was like a balloon inflating really quickly). We can't see before the singularity. It's like we can see the entire universe coming in through a keyhole, but we can't see the other side of the keyhole. There is no proof it can from nothing or that any true state of nothingness ever existed at all. It might not even be possible for nothing to exist. As a TLDR summation, it needs to be explained why the universe can't do anything God can do.
Leaving aside Rasmussen’s particular premise we should remember that the fallacy of composition doesn’t apply to all composite things. If I only have red bricks and I build a composite wall with those bricks, the wall will necessarily be red. It seems to me that a universe made up of individual contingent things probably falls into that kind of category of composite things. At least, the burden of proof is on the skeptic to explain where the non- contingency comes from.
Isn't a set of *things * made up of those things in short parts ? In which a part can be changed or removed or the order of set be changed i.e (abc) to (cab) then obviously the set is also contingent.
I think that this whole contingency argument only makes sense to us because we are familiar with a certain way of thinking. I mean we have defined certain things or events as separate from other events based on our own limited perception for the sake of mainly making predictions about possible future events. But one can argue that in the real world there are no separate things or events and that everything is still the big bang (or however it started or however it is) going on. In which case it would be pointless to discuss weather or not the universe is contingent. because there is no distinction between the universe and the so called contingent things and events in it. Which seems to imply that all of it is necessary.
What do you think of this objection. It seems to me that the argument depends on the universe not being deterministic. If the universe is deterministic then everything has to be the way it is and so there is no sense in which anything is contingent. The whole concept is meaningless. So in order for the concept to be meaningful there has to be somewhere in existence an exception to determinism. However if you accept that then why cant that breakdown be the origin of the universe?
I would say that even if the universe is deterministic, the deterministic system still wouldn’t have to exist and thereby could have been otherwise and so would be contingent. But even if you then say it exists due to the Big Bang, the question would still remain as to why the universe stays in existence.
Necessary and determined are completely different. This is modality. There is no metaphysical, logical nor nomological impossibility or contradiction in thinking the universe could have been otherwise. If you're a Necessatarian you have the burden of proof for the negation of contingency to show the impossibility of negation of necessitarianism.
"And he was intrigued by that. In fact, actually, that, uh... motivated him to abandon this particular objection." Me: 😏 in fact that, uh... shut him up real good. 😋
In all my time of searching, I have learned a few important things: - From Graham Oppy: Ultimately the God conversation is about comparing the virtues of competing worldviews, and while arguments aren't bad, they're only a tool to highlight the virtues or faults of a worldview. - From Ed Feser/Bertrand Russell: God isn't a respected theory in sciences like physics, but that's because that's the wrong field to look for God. God is a metaphysical theory. In metaphysics, God is and has for a long time been a respected theory. Physics describes how the things around us behave, but it doesn't tell us what the things around us *are*. That's what philosophy does. - From Josh Rasmussen: Theism is the best explanation for the existence of contingent things, and my thoughts are not identical to my brain states. From Josh, I have also learned a ton about how to have a conversation just from listening to him. I love you Josh Rasmussen - God bless you and may you continue to educate people like myself and to pioneer in contemporary philosophy of religion.
@@HoneybunMegapack well I will not try to argue for it here, and I don't *know* with Cartesian certainty, but it largely has to do with the fact that some things have finite values attached to them, which seems like they could have varied to some degree. That doesn't really seem like the kind of thing that would be metaphysically necessary. Also to say everything is necessary would be to postulate a LOT of necessary entities, making a seemingly pretty not simple theory of reality. Plus, intuitively it strongly seems that certain things might have not been there or been somewhere else. You can picture a possible world without them. There are more lines of reasoning that I don't know fully off the top of my head too, like for example there's something about: If necessity is a possible explanation for our thoughts, we don't have as good reason to think they're grounded in reality because they could just exist necessarily instead of being derived from the world. So there are lots of ways of going about it. Of course, it's one view to say everything is necessary, so there's some discussion to be had there. I think maybe Alex O'Connor thinks that? I will say if that's someone's view then they actually agree with stage 1 of the contingency argument, so as far as stage 1 goes I wouldn't necessarily disagree
Seems like a perfect explanation of the shortcomings of the human mind. If we don't have an answer, we''ll presume nonsense & find ways to convince ourselves of its truth. Just as one may say the infinite regress doesn't explain existence, neither does the magical McGuffin of the imagined thing which cannot not be. That's a major assumption we' are expected to accept in part because the cumbersome phrasing makes it smack of intellectualism without any actual substance to it. So, before pinning the argument on something as contradictory as this alleged odorless smell, it would be fair to ask if you can demonstrate it as anything other than a satisfying idea to serve as a stop-gap for a question whose only reasonable answer is "I don't know", The 2nd premise states everything in reality is dependent, or not. Before we can accept that premise, that which exists without being dependent should be cited & explained. Otherwise, we're just leaving a hole in the premise from which to pull non-existent things like one-sided sheep & square circles to conveniently serve as these necessary things which must exist and cannot not exist.
A square circle is a logical impossibility and a contradiction. God is neither of those things. A one sided sheep would still be contingent. This is fallacious reasoning. Contingency arguments don’t bring you to God. They bring you to a necessary being, which is one the attributes of God (perfect existence=necessary existence).
@@adamadams7314 No, they don't bring you even to a necessary "being" at all; like the Cosmo argument, they just lead to the conclusion that 🤷🏼♂️ "something happened/someone or something caused it or was needed to have brought all this into existence". It's pretty weak beer as a theistic argument. And as Hitchens said, all this gets you to is Deism (or even Pantheism) but not Theism. You're shedding thousands of skin cells right now. Their existence is contingent on your prior existence. Do you care what happens to those skin cells? I agree with John, the premises are flawed. Name me one thing you've experienced that is necessary and not contingent on the prior existence of something or someone else.
The idea of an unmoved mover has many problems. It's based on our understanding of causality IN the universe, but you're applying it ON the origin of universe. And even you do use that logic, there's no reason to conclude to a separate incontingent first cause if the cosmos could be incontingent on its own. There needs to be an explanation for everything, except for God, because there needs to something that is uncaused?This is special pleading. If God could exist without an explanation, out of necessity, why couldn't the cosmos? The cosmos consists of all possibles universes, but the cosmos itself wouldn't exist inside space and time: so also outside space and time. The natural law that would hold it together, would be outside of space, time, would be immaterial, and all powerful. There is no need for an intelligent being magically getting involved. The reason why this God idea seems rational is because this idea has been around for thousand of years.
No, the logic applies to the cosmos because the cosmos is clearly itself contingent and cannot "choose" to give rise to other contingent things. It only gives rises to more contingent objects by necessity of its given contingent state and contingent laws that could have been otherwise; while fundamental point intentionality can. Fundamental point intentionality is what we mean by God. Because only intentionality can give rise to contingent beings by choosing to instantiate them amongst an infinite realm of other forms and beings. The problem in your understanding is the mere definition of God. You don't know what God is and you have failed to understand the concept of contingency and why it should point to the existence of intentionality.
You're wrong in the claim, 'Just Empty space.' The vacuum is a sea of fluctuating energy governed by physical laws and a physical structure its called a quantum state which is occupied within the spatiotemporal realm.
I enjoy working with logic to discover truth [as much as is available to me]. On the other hand, I do not seem to care anything for philosophy. I would have thought I would. But all I have to do is hear a few words and my eyes glaze over, I find that the rarified discussions do not resonate with my interests. I can't figure out why one thing has appeal and something else that is 'seemingly' similar, has none, I am puzzled!
Perhaps I'm not seeing an answer to why the argument from contingency doesn't lead to necessitarianism in the comment below: There has to be a reason, why in principle, God choose to create possible world A, instead of possible world B. If A, then he did it based on his form or essence - which is a necessary being. God not being able to fail to instantiate any action, choose the best of all possible worlds (A). It could have never been the case that he choose another possible world B because that would go against his essence. But then he couldn't have chosen otherwise, and his choice is to necessary, and the world he created to an outcome of his perfect choice. The world all of which created necessarily the way it was. Could you elaborate a little bit more on the notion of "spontaneous action"? I'm afraid I didn't quite follow through the short period of time. Also if you do not mind, can you give me your definition between spontaneous action and mechanical cause? My notion of mechanical cause comes from the around age of enlightenment, where you get simple close-encountered causes that slowly fell apart at that period due to action-at-a-distance and various disciplines in chemistry, biology, magnetism, etc.
I've tried reading that paper before, Josh, and I'm just not sure if I understood the argument. So are you advocating that you do not believe in the PSR? If you don't mind, I also have another question for you, Josh. Why is it that you mentioned that something necessary cannot come from something contingent - that this is in principle impossible (the fallacy of composition), but something necessary can create something contingent (bootstrapping). I seem to see these type of arguments all the time. For example, the argument for the immateriality of the mind; that some 'x' distinctive properties cannot come from other 'y' distinctively different properties. But why is it necessarily the case that these certain beings can't have the potency for such properties to eventually actualize? We tend to see less complex things in the evolution of the universe form to more complex things all the time. Maybe not particularly one from contingent -> necessary, but surely a lot of explanationary gaps occur. This is why people seem to postulate emergentism all the time - albeit I don't find these sort of explanations very satisfying for the mind, though.
I'm not sure if I quite understand. Isn't it simply begging the question to say that something necessary can't come from something contingent? I'm not quite sure if you offered an explanation. I guess what I'm asking is, what creates the logical contradiction involved in saying that? Generally we'd say there's no contradiction in the inverse, so I'm wanting to see if there's a contradiction there?
27:42 the William Rowe argument. Would that be affirmed by a worldview that the only contingent things in existence are creatures with free will? Everything else is necessary as logical consequences of the existence of God?
Why is an arrangement of particles even an interesting notion of existence? That is just a human labelling of reality. Surely the particles it's made of is the real thing.
@@user-qk2ic4vg2sbro can you explain more? I also inclined towards mereological nihilism and wondering how one can formulate the argument if there is infinite amount of contingent entities
I like it but I can right away offer that contingency is based solely on logic explaining logically outcomes. This is using logic to explain illogical things. But it can't be ruled either, (either the dark matter theory), it must be looked into.
Our scientific method is built on the assumption that we can use logic and reason, that the data points us to increase the weight of some hypotheses and detract from others. It is exciting to suggest that the universe is illogical, but so far (as you point out, we're still working on it) our science has progressed through hypotheses alone. How do I test the hypothesis that the universe is illogical? We're doing it all the time, but so far, it's logical. I suppose time could reveal otherwise.
What about the objection that notion concrete necessary being is incoherent?, those who think that metaphysical modality =logical consistency might suppose that only proposition can be necessary. and a Humean about causation might think that things could be caused without explanation because its conceivable so ..
Thanks for the reply and sharing those articles. another interesting thing to know related to the framework rather than any premise would be whether the argument presented here or those various others that are defended in those papers assume or rely upon any particular views regarding Time as some other versions of cosmological argument do, like do they rely on any particular theory within debate about ontology of time (Presentism/Eternalism)? related to this would be what sort of analysis of causation or theory of causation do these arguments rely on. I ask this since you've shared those papers which seem to develop this larger framework within which the argument is to be presented and one's theory of time could affect causation and modality. Coming back to the premises, I can think of one Objection to premise 3 particularly its support from experience, coming from Philosopher Graham Oppy , he says that one can accept that things can't appear uncaused within realm of our experience but reject that the whole cosmos can't appear out of nowhere. because in our experience things occupy some spatio-temporal location so before things could appear uncaused out of nowhere some other thing would have to vacate the space so if we experience a tiger for example suddenly appear in a room then it has the space that has been vacated as its cause but such situation doesn't hold for the whole cosmos so that might appear out of nowhere . so this might falsify the premise that "every" contingent thing has a cause or something it could depend on.?
Ok, just one more thing, I apologize if this is a little misguided or unclear. You mention the difference between explanations and causation in one of those papers. particularly you say something like that explanations can connect facts containing either concrete or abstract entities . I was wondering about those explanations involving concrete entities particularly the so called Grounding explanations or Metaphysical explanations as they are called(though I am not so clear on the labels) . It seems that one can avoid infinite regressive explanations in case of some sort of causal dependence but it seems that Philosophers usually argue that those sort of metaphysical explanations proceed towards infinity where one fact obtains in virtue of some other fact ... So is it allowed in your arguments for that sort of explanations or dependence relations to proceed toward infinity or does its conclusion also entails that there is some fundamental Ground of all being or something like that ..? or more generally just what sort of dependence relations are crucial to the argument? and just to be clear on the issue of time by A/B-theory you mean Presentism/Eternalism too? And again Thanks for great interaction.
@@nasasjanitor994 I'v seen this argument before but it is doesn't make any sense ( there is an infinite fractions of time but I still got to write this to you)
@@nasasjanitor994 the ending of the argument for me sounds stupid ... it brings an example of multicauses on one effect ? while the actuality it is not it is either a linear chain or a circle. in both cases there are mannny problems in the way
@@doperomi4236 By this I can see you don't understand what the paradox is about. I'll adapt the paradox so that it relates to the "message" example you gave. So you got this comment at 6:00, and you are ready to respond at a certain time, let's say at 8:00. But hold on, another you will want to respond at 7:30 (which is earlier), but then another you will respond at 7:15, and another at 7:07 and so forth till infinity. Which you responded to my comment? Could it have been the 8:00 you? Well, no, because the 7:30 you responded earlier, but wait, the 7:15 came before, so he had to have responded, right? well no, the 7:07 you came before, so every single you could have not responded because there was always another you ahead, and at the same time, someone had to respond because at 7 is when a you had scheduled to respond. So, in summary, you did and did not respond, that's the paradox.
@@doperomi4236 Due to the problems that come from the assumption that the past is infinite, we would have to conclude that there is a necessary foundation outside contingent objects that explains the how of them.
"Contingency" doesn't exist. That's not an actual property of anything. Asserting contingency is asserting your conclusion. There is no reason the cosmos needs a beginning or a "cause," and inserting as a magic fairy as the "cause" even if this argument could prove the need for a cause, which this argument does not. Anything Gid can do the universe can do. Anything the universe can't do, God can't do. By the way, illusions do not count as things that *exist*.
Because you can’t use dictionary definitions intended for colloquial usage when doing philosophy. It’s like asking why a Biologists specific definition of life is different from that in the dictionary.
Lord Humungus but the point is, if a biologist was trying to articulate a certain point regarding “life” they would use the scientific definition of life that makes the most sense for scientific purposes. Likewise, the definition of contingent in philosophy is to describe a very specific thing to deduce certain attributes about reality and objects
The nature of material reality, which is contingent and transient, gives us a reasonable basis for believing in the necessary being, which is essential and eternal, from which material reality initially came.
elegantly put
The universe cannot be necessary because it is contingent and therefor had a beginning as shown by the standard cosmological model.
The standard cosmological model doesn't show that the universe had a beginning.
th-cam.com/video/FgpvCxDL7q4/w-d-xo.html
Even if it did it could be the case that there is something outside of the universe which is necessary and not an intelligent being.
Not necessarily (no pun intended). The universe could theoretically have existed eternally but still be contingent on something else for its existence.
Contingency just means there's nothing in the nature of the thing itself that guarantees it HAS to exist.
Based on Josh's explanation, I think he is making an argument from induction to counter the fallacy of composition, e.g. consider a group of two things, it is dependent, three things, it is dependent, etc. to infinity. Therefore any group of size n things will be dependent
Hi Dr. Rasmussen would love to hear your response- I am currently in my journey to seek truth!
Would a reply to objection #1 be: There is indeed a super big thing that contains all contingent things and that is the universe. That universe is itself contingent because 1) we can conceive of a universe that different, with different laws of physics, different corks 2) the universe is expanding it is changing- what is that change dependant on? 3) we can conceive that the event of big bang didn't happen and universe not coming into existence
One way by ibn sina (11th century) is to say that, the whole set is dependant on the parts to be what it is ontologically.
If the parts didn't exist, then the whole wouldn't.
You could re-arrange the whole.
Therefore the whole isn't neccasary
@@radirandombut is a whole is different thing than the parts that bring it to the existence it is not clear ı think and also in the mereology there is this position called mereological nihilism which states that there is no”wholes” in reality rather just the tiniest particles arranged in a way and we call the aggregate of these particles “wholes”
@ahmetbaykoc1087
The whole is defined by the existence of the parts
Also, mereological nihilism doesn't work to refute this argument as it is a merely semantic way to only look at things that are metaphysical undivisable or uncomposed.
We can still concieve of a modality and reality of the arrangement of the small particles or things.
@@radirandom thanks for the reply bro
İ find the argument successful and think that the chain of contingents must stop at a neccesary being. But i want to understand the argument even in the infinite chain of contingent being so help me clarify in my head in the possible scenario in infinite chain. So the ‘cause’ of this chain is its contingent parts so why further search for an external cause for the chain itself ? Is the arrangement of the parts is important since the formal cause of aristotle is not widely accepted among modern analytic philosophers how do we know ‘the arrangement’ of parts could ve been different and needs an external cause. Thanks again mate
@ahmetbaykoc1087
Firstly asalamualaykum, are you muslim?
Turkish?
Second point when I say it could be arranged differently , that is another way to say that this exact layout or thing that exists isn't neccasary and we could concieve of another chain instead of this one for example where a b c doesn't exist.
To help you get the infinite regress argument here it is:
This is as the infinite series itself depends on its memebers to be what it is. The ontological status of the infinite series is dependant on the existence of all infinite contingent parts together. Meaning that if we removed all of them from the set or even removed 5, the series would not exist or would change.
To show his numerically;
Let's say we have a contingent set called £ where , A B C D ... all the way to infinite are individual members.
Then by defintion, all members of £ must be contingent and cannot be neccasary as that would not be in the series.
Just like if I gave an infinite set $ where it is all odd numbers 1 to infinite. All members by defintion must be odd no matter how close we get to infinite.
Now by defintion, anything that is contingent must depend on or be caused by something else external to it.
Therefore all infinite members of the series £ must have that modal status to depend on or be caused by something else external to it.
We will call this modal status م .
If all infinite members in £ must have the modal status م, therefore there must be something external to every single member of the infinite series that it relies on outside of the series £ .
The things that all infinite members no matter how far you go back with modal status م depend on cannot be in the set £ as we already defined the totality of the series with the modal status م therefore entailing a contridiction.
So by defintion, the other logical alternative to everything with the modal status م which by defintion is in the series £ , is something without modal status م and therefore not in the series £.
To finally conlude, the entire series £ is dependant on something outside of the set or else you fall into contridiction.
When you say necessary, do you mean “it cannot not exist” period, or do you mean “It cannot not exist without everything else ceasing to exist too”?
There seem to be a lot of objections to the objections that rely on inductive reasoning about how we experience things in everyday life. That’s generally fine, I don’t have a problem with induction as that’s how most of us operate in the world. But we can’t apply our experiences to events we’ve never even come close to observing. We can’t say we don’t experience something coming from nothing, because we don’t interact with nothing. It’s a non-starter to approach the question on an inductive basis.
Likewise, we shouldn’t be making inductive arguments about the “beginning” of our local presentation of the universe. We don’t interact with entire universes as an outside observer like we do with “iPhones”.
Also - how often do we interact with something we *know* to be necessary?
you don't wana reason about it and you can life happily. that fine. but what if i ask you to make a judgement, regardless. what would your conclusion be. not base on indeuction, but even based on your pure logical deduction.
Josh this was SUPER helpful. Very clear and reasonable.
I think it's very charitable of you to call them the best objections, I think they're terrible!:P
Kit Alcock since you are stupid of course they seem terrible
That' why they were chosen. They are strawman objections. The Contingency argument is full on garbage, but this channel is not going to tell you what the real problems are.
Ken Scaletta How is it garbage?
@Kit Alcock present a better objection then lol
@@johnanderson9330 It assumes its own conclusion. It asserts that the universe is "contingent" without justification. Contingency of the universe is a conclusion disguised as a premise. And, as with all cosmological arguments, it's special pleading. It asserts an absolute rule ("Nothing can cause itself to exist"), then makes an immediate exception to that rule for "God" without explaining how or why "God" is exempt but not the universe. It doesn't even give a coherent definition for "God."
Also, it needs to be explained what is meant by "universe." Does that mean just our own local universe or everything that may exist in a larger cosmos or multiverse? A multiverse needs no more beginning or origin or "cause" than a God does. We don't even know that our own universe did not have some form of existence before the Big Bang. We can see that the universe expanded (and continues to expand) from an original singularity (the Big Bang was not literally an explosion, it was like a balloon inflating really quickly). We can't see before the singularity. It's like we can see the entire universe coming in through a keyhole, but we can't see the other side of the keyhole. There is no proof it can from nothing or that any true state of nothingness ever existed at all. It might not even be possible for nothing to exist.
As a TLDR summation, it needs to be explained why the universe can't do anything God can do.
I don't understand how your premise 3 doesn't contradict the fallacy of composition
Leaving aside Rasmussen’s particular premise we should remember that the fallacy of composition doesn’t apply to all composite things. If I only have red bricks and I build a composite wall with those bricks, the wall will necessarily be red. It seems to me that a universe made up of individual contingent things probably falls into that kind of category of composite things. At least, the burden of proof is on the skeptic to explain where the non- contingency comes from.
Isn't a set of *things * made up of those things in short parts ?
In which a part can be changed or removed or the order of set be changed i.e (abc) to (cab) then obviously the set is also contingent.
@@MuhammadHassan200 I think that the Hume-Edwards principle is good rebuttal of this line of thinking.
I think that this whole contingency argument only makes sense to us because we are familiar with a certain way of thinking. I mean we have defined certain things or events as separate from other events based on our own limited perception for the sake of mainly making predictions about possible future events.
But one can argue that in the real world there are no separate things or events and that everything is still the big bang (or however it started or however it is) going on.
In which case it would be pointless to discuss weather or not the universe is contingent. because there is no distinction between the universe and the so called contingent things and events in it. Which seems to imply that all of it is necessary.
What do you think of this objection. It seems to me that the argument depends on the universe not being deterministic. If the universe is deterministic then everything has to be the way it is and so there is no sense in which anything is contingent. The whole concept is meaningless. So in order for the concept to be meaningful there has to be somewhere in existence an exception to determinism. However if you accept that then why cant that breakdown be the origin of the universe?
I would say that even if the universe is deterministic, the deterministic system still wouldn’t have to exist and thereby could have been otherwise and so would be contingent. But even if you then say it exists due to the Big Bang, the question would still remain as to why the universe stays in existence.
We say, contingency is something That necessitates others and possible in itself.
Not in a chain.
So it eschews determinism
@@DryApologist if a system doesnt have to exist, it wouldnt be deterministic
Necessary and determined are completely different. This is modality. There is no metaphysical, logical nor nomological impossibility or contradiction in thinking the universe could have been otherwise. If you're a Necessatarian you have the burden of proof for the negation of contingency to show the impossibility of negation of necessitarianism.
@@SunlightSentinel not a deterministic but if they don't believe in it, epistemically why is the burden on them?
"And he was intrigued by that. In fact, actually, that, uh... motivated him to abandon this particular objection."
Me: 😏 in fact that, uh... shut him up real good. 😋
In all my time of searching, I have learned a few important things:
- From Graham Oppy: Ultimately the God conversation is about comparing the virtues of competing worldviews, and while arguments aren't bad, they're only a tool to highlight the virtues or faults of a worldview.
- From Ed Feser/Bertrand Russell: God isn't a respected theory in sciences like physics, but that's because that's the wrong field to look for God. God is a metaphysical theory. In metaphysics, God is and has for a long time been a respected theory. Physics describes how the things around us behave, but it doesn't tell us what the things around us *are*. That's what philosophy does.
- From Josh Rasmussen: Theism is the best explanation for the existence of contingent things, and my thoughts are not identical to my brain states. From Josh, I have also learned a ton about how to have a conversation just from listening to him. I love you Josh Rasmussen - God bless you and may you continue to educate people like myself and to pioneer in contemporary philosophy of religion.
@@HoneybunMegapack well I will not try to argue for it here, and I don't *know* with Cartesian certainty, but it largely has to do with the fact that some things have finite values attached to them, which seems like they could have varied to some degree. That doesn't really seem like the kind of thing that would be metaphysically necessary. Also to say everything is necessary would be to postulate a LOT of necessary entities, making a seemingly pretty not simple theory of reality. Plus, intuitively it strongly seems that certain things might have not been there or been somewhere else. You can picture a possible world without them. There are more lines of reasoning that I don't know fully off the top of my head too, like for example there's something about: If necessity is a possible explanation for our thoughts, we don't have as good reason to think they're grounded in reality because they could just exist necessarily instead of being derived from the world. So there are lots of ways of going about it. Of course, it's one view to say everything is necessary, so there's some discussion to be had there. I think maybe Alex O'Connor thinks that? I will say if that's someone's view then they actually agree with stage 1 of the contingency argument, so as far as stage 1 goes I wouldn't necessarily disagree
@@HoneybunMegapack just look lol
great video buddy. keep it up
Seems like a perfect explanation of the shortcomings of the human mind. If we don't have an answer, we''ll presume nonsense & find ways to convince ourselves of its truth. Just as one may say the infinite regress doesn't explain existence, neither does the magical McGuffin of the imagined thing which cannot not be. That's a major assumption we' are expected to accept in part because the cumbersome phrasing makes it smack of intellectualism without any actual substance to it.
So, before pinning the argument on something as contradictory as this alleged odorless smell, it would be fair to ask if you can demonstrate it as anything other than a satisfying idea to serve as a stop-gap for a question whose only reasonable answer is "I don't know", The 2nd premise states everything in reality is dependent, or not. Before we can accept that premise, that which exists without being dependent should be cited & explained. Otherwise, we're just leaving a hole in the premise from which to pull non-existent things like one-sided sheep & square circles to conveniently serve as these necessary things which must exist and cannot not exist.
A square circle is a logical impossibility and a contradiction. God is neither of those things. A one sided sheep would still be contingent. This is fallacious reasoning. Contingency arguments don’t bring you to God. They bring you to a necessary being, which is one the attributes of God (perfect existence=necessary existence).
@@adamadams7314 No, they don't bring you even to a necessary "being" at all; like the Cosmo argument, they just lead to the conclusion that 🤷🏼♂️ "something happened/someone or something caused it or was needed to have brought all this into existence". It's pretty weak beer as a theistic argument. And as Hitchens said, all this gets you to is Deism (or even Pantheism) but not Theism. You're shedding thousands of skin cells right now. Their existence is contingent on your prior existence. Do you care what happens to those skin cells?
I agree with John, the premises are flawed. Name me one thing you've experienced that is necessary and not contingent on the prior existence of something or someone else.
The idea of an unmoved mover has many problems. It's based on our understanding of causality IN the universe, but you're applying it ON the origin of universe. And even you do use that logic, there's no reason to conclude to a separate incontingent first cause if the cosmos could be incontingent on its own. There needs to be an explanation for everything, except for God, because there needs to something that is uncaused?This is special pleading. If God could exist without an explanation, out of necessity, why couldn't the cosmos? The cosmos consists of all possibles universes, but the cosmos itself wouldn't exist inside space and time: so also outside space and time. The natural law that would hold it together, would be outside of space, time, would be immaterial, and all powerful. There is no need for an intelligent being magically getting involved. The reason why this God idea seems rational is because this idea has been around for thousand of years.
No, the logic applies to the cosmos because the cosmos is clearly itself contingent and cannot "choose" to give rise to other contingent things. It only gives rises to more contingent objects by necessity of its given contingent state and contingent laws that could have been otherwise; while fundamental point intentionality can.
Fundamental point intentionality is what we mean by God. Because only intentionality can give rise to contingent beings by choosing to instantiate them amongst an infinite realm of other forms and beings.
The problem in your understanding is the mere definition of God. You don't know what God is and you have failed to understand the concept of contingency and why it should point to the existence of intentionality.
Virtual particles don't appear from nothing but rather from empty space.Space is definitely something.
Correct me if I'm wrong
I mean anyone with brains and reason won't think that
Btw ASSALAMUALAIKUM 😉
You're wrong in the claim, 'Just Empty space.' The vacuum is a sea of fluctuating energy governed by physical laws and a physical structure its called a quantum state which is occupied within the spatiotemporal realm.
I enjoy working with logic to discover truth [as much as is available to me]. On the other hand, I do not seem to care anything for philosophy. I would have thought I would. But all I have to do is hear a few words and my eyes glaze over, I find that the rarified discussions do not resonate with my interests. I can't figure out why one thing has appeal and something else that is 'seemingly' similar, has none, I am puzzled!
Perhaps I'm not seeing an answer to why the argument from contingency doesn't lead to necessitarianism in the comment below:
There has to be a reason, why in principle, God choose to create possible world A, instead of possible world B. If A, then he did it based on his form or essence - which is a necessary being. God not being able to fail to instantiate any action, choose the best of all possible worlds (A). It could have never been the case that he choose another possible world B because that would go against his essence. But then he couldn't have chosen otherwise, and his choice is to necessary, and the world he created to an outcome of his perfect choice. The world all of which created necessarily the way it was.
Could you elaborate a little bit more on the notion of "spontaneous action"? I'm afraid I didn't quite follow through the short period of time. Also if you do not mind, can you give me your definition between spontaneous action and mechanical cause? My notion of mechanical cause comes from the around age of enlightenment, where you get simple close-encountered causes that slowly fell apart at that period due to action-at-a-distance and various disciplines in chemistry, biology, magnetism, etc.
I've tried reading that paper before, Josh, and I'm just not sure if I understood the argument. So are you advocating that you do not believe in the PSR?
If you don't mind, I also have another question for you, Josh. Why is it that you mentioned that something necessary cannot come from something contingent - that this is in principle impossible (the fallacy of composition), but something necessary can create something contingent (bootstrapping). I seem to see these type of arguments all the time. For example, the argument for the immateriality of the mind; that some 'x' distinctive properties cannot come from other 'y' distinctively different properties. But why is it necessarily the case that these certain beings can't have the potency for such properties to eventually actualize? We tend to see less complex things in the evolution of the universe form to more complex things all the time. Maybe not particularly one from contingent -> necessary, but surely a lot of explanationary gaps occur. This is why people seem to postulate emergentism all the time - albeit I don't find these sort of explanations very satisfying for the mind, though.
I'm not sure if I quite understand. Isn't it simply begging the question to say that something necessary can't come from something contingent? I'm not quite sure if you offered an explanation. I guess what I'm asking is, what creates the logical contradiction involved in saying that? Generally we'd say there's no contradiction in the inverse, so I'm wanting to see if there's a contradiction there?
Probably not. Are you saying that something necessary has to always exist? Couldn't there be multiple versions of necessary?
Where is the stage 2 argument?
3:40 i-phone, just appears!
23:oo bootstrapping
27:42 william rowe argument
what do you mean by a spontaneous action ?
27:42 the William Rowe argument.
Would that be affirmed by a worldview that the only contingent things in existence are creatures with free will? Everything else is necessary as logical consequences of the existence of God?
Contingent here means “could fail to exist.”
Understood that way, creatures with free will are *not* the only contingent things.
Why is an arrangement of particles even an interesting notion of existence? That is just a human labelling of reality. Surely the particles it's made of is the real thing.
What?
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns What?
That's mereological nihilism.
Then I'll make the ontological argument from contingency and plurality, It's more easy
@@user-qk2ic4vg2sbro can you explain more? I also inclined towards mereological nihilism and wondering how one can formulate the argument if there is infinite amount of contingent entities
I like it but I can right away offer that contingency is based solely on logic explaining logically outcomes. This is using logic to explain illogical things. But it can't be ruled either, (either the dark matter theory), it must be looked into.
Our scientific method is built on the assumption that we can use logic and reason, that the data points us to increase the weight of some hypotheses and detract from others. It is exciting to suggest that the universe is illogical, but so far (as you point out, we're still working on it) our science has progressed through hypotheses alone. How do I test the hypothesis that the universe is illogical? We're doing it all the time, but so far, it's logical. I suppose time could reveal otherwise.
"Logic to explain illogical things " either a thing is logical or illogical i mean dude come one such a lame argument.
What about the objection that notion concrete necessary being is incoherent?, those who think that metaphysical modality =logical consistency might suppose that only proposition can be necessary. and a Humean about causation might think that things could be caused without explanation because its conceivable so ..
Thanks for the reply and sharing those articles.
another interesting thing to know related to the framework rather than any premise would be whether the argument presented here or those various others that are defended in those papers assume or rely upon any particular views regarding Time as some other versions of cosmological argument do, like do they rely on any particular theory within debate about ontology of time (Presentism/Eternalism)?
related to this would be what sort of analysis of causation or theory of causation do these arguments rely on.
I ask this since you've shared those papers which seem to develop this larger framework within which the argument is to be presented and one's theory of time could affect causation and modality.
Coming back to the premises, I can think of one Objection to premise 3 particularly its support from experience, coming from Philosopher Graham Oppy , he says that one can accept that things can't appear uncaused within realm of our experience but reject that the whole cosmos can't appear out of nowhere. because in our experience things occupy some spatio-temporal location so before things could appear uncaused out of nowhere some other thing would have to vacate the space so if we experience a tiger for example suddenly appear in a room then it has the space that has been vacated as its cause but such situation doesn't hold for the whole cosmos so that might appear out of nowhere . so this might falsify the premise that "every" contingent thing has a cause or something it could depend on.?
Ok, just one more thing, I apologize if this is a little misguided or unclear. You mention the difference between explanations and causation in one of those papers. particularly you say something like that explanations can connect facts containing either concrete or abstract entities . I was wondering about those explanations involving concrete entities particularly the so called Grounding explanations or Metaphysical explanations as they are called(though I am not so clear on the labels) . It seems that one can avoid infinite regressive explanations in case of some sort of causal dependence but it seems that Philosophers usually argue that those sort of metaphysical explanations proceed towards infinity where one fact obtains in virtue of some other fact ...
So is it allowed in your arguments for that sort of explanations or dependence relations to proceed toward infinity or does its conclusion also entails that there is some fundamental Ground of all being or something like that ..? or more generally just what sort of dependence relations are crucial to the argument?
and just to be clear on the issue of time by A/B-theory you mean Presentism/Eternalism too?
And again Thanks for great interaction.
Debunks the fallacy of composition by committing the fallacy of composition.
if there is an infinite chain why is it necessary to have a necessary foundation
I'll suggest you check the "grim reaper paradox"
@@nasasjanitor994 I'v seen this argument before but it is doesn't make any sense ( there is an infinite fractions of time but I still got to write this to you)
@@nasasjanitor994 the ending of the argument for me sounds stupid ... it brings an example of multicauses on one effect ?
while the actuality it is not
it is either a linear chain or a circle.
in both cases there are mannny problems in the way
@@doperomi4236 By this I can see you don't understand what the paradox is about. I'll adapt the paradox so that it relates to the "message" example you gave. So you got this comment at 6:00, and you are ready to respond at a certain time, let's say at 8:00. But hold on, another you will want to respond at 7:30 (which is earlier), but then another you will respond at 7:15, and another at 7:07 and so forth till infinity. Which you responded to my comment? Could it have been the 8:00 you? Well, no, because the 7:30 you responded earlier, but wait, the 7:15 came before, so he had to have responded, right? well no, the 7:07 you came before, so every single you could have not responded because there was always another you ahead, and at the same time, someone had to respond because at 7 is when a you had scheduled to respond. So, in summary, you did and did not respond, that's the paradox.
@@doperomi4236 Due to the problems that come from the assumption that the past is infinite, we would have to conclude that there is a necessary foundation outside contingent objects that explains the how of them.
Thank you sir.
"Contingency" doesn't exist. That's not an actual property of anything. Asserting contingency is asserting your conclusion. There is no reason the cosmos needs a beginning or a "cause," and inserting as a magic fairy as the "cause" even if this argument could prove the need for a cause, which this argument does not.
Anything Gid can do the universe can do. Anything the universe can't do, God can't do.
By the way, illusions do not count as things that *exist*.
Of course contingency exists. Your comment is contingent.
Mirages don’t exist?
@@andypham6335 He's not colloquially talking about contingency, this is about modality.
It’s concievable that unicorns exist (possible).
Unicorns don’t exist.
Unicorns are contingent.
@@ananonymousoyster365 Anything is conceivable. Conceivable doesn't mean possible. Not all conceivable things are possible.
Why is the google definition of contingent different from yours?
Because you can’t use dictionary definitions intended for colloquial usage when doing philosophy. It’s like asking why a Biologists specific definition of life is different from that in the dictionary.
@@RadicOmega yh but the loins is a specific thing, life can have so many meanings. So I don't think ur point is valid
Lord Humungus but the point is, if a biologist was trying to articulate a certain point regarding “life” they would use the scientific definition of life that makes the most sense for scientific purposes. Likewise, the definition of contingent in philosophy is to describe a very specific thing to deduce certain attributes about reality and objects
@@RadicOmega Oh wait my bad, my "loins" comment was supposed to be a reply to another comment on a different video lol
Lord Humungus LMAOOOOOOOOOOO