(April 21, 2016 at 8:36 am)robvalue Wrote: OK well...
The infinite chain covers that with each thing being contingent on the next. That invalidates premise 2.
Ya, that is what I've been asking you to show me, i.e. why 2 is not true. I clearly understand that you challenge 2, I don't yet understand why.
Quote:I don't agree that the existence of one object depending on continued existence of the other means the second object is providing anything, except in a purely metaphorical or tautological way.
Here's what I mean by way of example: An atom of helium depends on the continued existence of 2 protons. Each of those two protons is providing for the existence of the helium atom at every moment in which they continue to exist. How do I know that? If one of those proton's existence's suddenly stopped, that helium atom would no longer exist (agree?/disagree?). The continued existence of both protons provides for the continued existence of the helium atom. If it were possible for one of the protons to stop existing, and the helium atom to continue to exist, then the helium atom is not dependent on the existence of that proton in the way I mean dependent/conditional/contingent.
Quote:We're not saying why the relationship is this way. It just is this way. You seem to be assigning it more meaning than is apparent. It's cause and effect.
No, not more meaning, but a different meaning than what is usually assumed by people talking about these concepts. What things must be presently existing in the thing so that we could rightly say, "this thing is existing as helium"? NOT, What things must have happened so that we could rightly say, "this thing causes helium"?
