The contingency is about a state of affair which something that exists, like the universe, can exist not too. It is said that it then follows that any contingent thing must have a cause. I am afraid that I cannot understand how the conclusion follows.
I am very sad that I didn’t hear from anybody. Let’s hope that this thread takes your attention. I really like to know how the conclusion follows.
“Worthy are you, Lord our God,
to receive glory and honor and power,
for you created all things;
because of your will they came to be and were created.”
A thing is real either because it is it’s nature to be real or because it is being caused to be real. If it is the nature of a being to exist, it cannot cease to be and does not require a cause for it’s existence. In other-words it’s existence is natural.
A contingent being is only contingent given the fact that it can cease to be, and it can only cease to be because it does not exist by the power of it’s own nature. It’s not it’s nature to exist. Therefore it’s nature is not a necessary act of existence, because if it was there wouldn’t be a possibility of it’s non-existence. Because it does not exist by the power of it’s own nature it requires the existential power of another being to cause it’s existence and sustain it in existence. Otherwise it cannot exist because it is not it’s nature to exist, and neither can it rely on the causality of other contingent natures to exist cause they too do not have a natural act of existence. Thus contingent beings require the existential causal power of a necessary being in order to exist. In other-words contingent beings exist by the power of a being that has a natural act of existence and has the power to give existence.
This is referred to as the uncaused-cause.
I hope my post helped. God Bless.
Could you please give an example of something which is caused to be real?
How anything could have a nature when its very existence is caused by something else? I think I asked this question to you before. Something that you called it Divine Mechanics. Do you remember?
I also make distinction between something which can cease to exist and something which is possible to exist. As I noted in OP, contingent being is defined as something which is possible to exist, like universe. That is why I have problem with the conclusion. I don’t see how something which is possible to exist needs a sustainer/creator. Something which is possible to exist can simply exist.
Moreover, there are entities which can cease to exist but they temporary exist. Electron for example has a life time about 6.6*10^28. It however has a nature.
I forgot. What do you mean with act of existence? To me something simply either exists or exists not.
I don’t understand you.
You think something can begin to exist merely because it’s a possibility? How is that possible, and what is making it possible?
Or a thing does exist because it is possible? But how do you get from the mere possibility of a thing to it’s actual existence?
I think things are possible only because something is making them possible, and only a being that necessarily exists can be described as the root of all possibility. Otherwise things are just brute facts, and i don’t believe in brute facts because i don’t think things can arbitrarily exist or be arbitrarily possible.
The fact that a thing is. A real being. But there are two types of real beings. One is a being that is naturally real. It is real because it is it’s nature to be real; in other-words it’s nature is existence. And the other type is a being that exist’s only because it is being caused to be real; in other words the act of it’s nature is only possible by it’s participation in existence rather than it’s nature being existence itself, because it does not naturally exist.
Anything that is an actualised potential. Potential cannot actualise itself. The universe is essentially a sequence of actualised potential. It is moving from one potential state to another. It is something that is in a continual state of becoming real. It is being realised as opposed to something that simply exists. It does not have the fullness of it’s reality in it’s existence because more reality is being actualised in it. It’s act of existence is limited and so it cannot be considered the source of existence. A necessary act of reality has no potential reality in it because everything that it is naturally exists and necessarily so. It does not lack reality by definition. Thus the universe cannot be described as a necessary act of existence and therefore must have a cause.
Things can be divided to three categories: 1) Necessary, 2) Possible and 3) impossible. A necessary thing must exist, like your God. A possible thing can exist or not. And an impossible thing cannot exist.
Accept i would go even further and say that a possible thing can only exist because of a being that is necessary.
I could be but it is not necessary.
A thing exists necessarily because it is it’s nature to exist, and if it is a things nature to exist it cannot possibly not exist. If a thing can only possibly exist rather than necessarily exist, then it follows necessarily that it is not it’s nature to exist since it does not naturally-exist, and we can only make sense of it’s existence if something is making it exist. Otherwise what reason is there for it’s existence or even the possibility of it’s existence? If not a necessary reality, then what you have is a being that arbitrarily-exists; existing not because of it’s own nature or because of the nature of something else, but for no reason at all. This is a brute fact, and i reject it because it doesn’t make any intelligible sense.
There are two sort of things which exist: 1) Something which has essence, like mind and 2) something which doesn’t have any essence, basically physical that a mind experiences and causes such as thought. As it is discussed, things moreover are divided into three other categories: 1) Necessary, 2) Possible and 3) impossible. This gives us six combinations. For example, one can conclude that there should be a mind if a thought exist. In this case, mind is necessary not because it must exist intrinsically but because something exists, thought, which necessitates the existence of mind. In my opinion, nothingness is a feasible scenario so anything might not exist at all. Can you prove that something must necessary exist without using a premise which uses the fact that something else exists now?
If it doesn’t have an essence, then what is it. Actually that is a silly question, if a thing does not have a “whatness” to which we refer to it as being something then it is nothing at all. In what sense can we speak of it as being?
It is what I call physical/illusion, such as thought. Thought cannot exist on its own because it doesn’t have any essence. We however are able to create and experience thoughts so in this sense they exist.
Interesting. And it is a good analogy for something not being able to exist on it’s own. However, if you imagine a duck, you are in fact imagining the “whatness” of some possible thing and not just an existence (which is meaningless accept in reference to an essence or nature that exists). A duck is the “whatness” of it, or essence. What you are imagining is a duck or whatever it is, but it does not exist of it’s own accord or according to it’s nature; It’s nature is not existence otherwise there would always be a duck.
I would rephrase your statement as the following…
A thought cannot exist on it’s own because what you are thinking does not exist by the power of it’s own nature but by the power of your intellect.
So, do you agree that argument from contingency is wrong because there is a category of things which are possible?
- You have not demonstrated why that would necessarily follow
- It would lead to a metaphysical contradiction.
So you don’t agree that possible things could exist on their own?
What is that contradiction?