The Principle of Contingent Causation: The Impossibility of Infinite Regress.

[Neo-Scholastic]

None of this addresses the fact that at its root the argument requires special pleading.

~ Everything that comes to be and passes away is contingent.
~ The causal chain of contingent things cannot be an infinite regress (for reasons explained elsewhere).
~ Therefore there needs to be one non-contingent thing at the origin of the chain of contingent things.

Which part of this is special pleading?

Just to play devil's advocate, the concept of contigency is a Hegelian dialictic. Positing contingecy as a category of being implies a catagory of non-contingent being, does it not. In the same way you cannot have slaves without a master. It is not special pleading so much as begging the question by framing the necessary being demonstration within the distinction between contingent and non-contingent being.

[Belacqua]

Just to play devil's advocate, the concept of contigency is a Hegelian dialictic. Positing contingecy as a category of being implies a catagory of non-contingent being, does it not. In the same way you cannot have slaves without a master. It is not special pleading so much as begging the question by framing the necessary being demonstration within the distinction between contingent and non-contingent being.

Ooh, difficult. I like questions like this...

I see what you mean, I think. In the case of a master/slave dichotomy, each needs the other to exist. No slaves without masters, no masters without somebody to boss around. So the contingent/non-contingent dichotomy might be the same....

I'd say that it WOULD be possible for everything to be contingent, with no non-contingent thing at all, under certain conditions. Namely, if we think of the chain of causation as being temporal, and we also think that the universe is eternal with no temporal beginning point. In that case, it would be contingent turtles all the way down, and since an infinite regress is OK here, there doesn't have to be a non-contingent First Cause. You could have a world of slaves (contingencies) with no masters (First Cause). 

This is why I don't like to frame Thomist arguments as temporal chains, but rather as essential. After all, Aristotle thought that the universe is eternal with no beginning point. 

Attempts to argue a First Cause based on the Big Bang also seem to fail here, since these days they talk about new universes "budding off" of multiverses or whatever. (To what extent physicists believe this I don't know. But it's a way out of seeing the Big Bang as the beginning of everything.) 

However, if we're talking about essential chains of causality, then I think we get down to a non-contingent thing because it's necessary for existence, not simply because we need it as dialectical opposite. 

Tl;dr -- I think contingency doesn't have to exist ONLY as a pair with non-contingency, if we're talking about temporal chains.

Now here's a crazy thought: could there be a non-contingent thing with NO contingent things following on from it? It would be non-contingent, but not a First Cause, since it caused nothing. (This would be, I guess, like a God who didn't bother to create the universe.) Since the reasons why God made the world are not included in the First Cause arguments, I think this is logically possible. So there you'd have non-contingency without its dialectical opposite. 

But I've never thought about this before and I'm open to suggestion!

[Thumpalumpacus]

None of this addresses the fact that at its root the argument requires special pleading.

~ Everything that comes to be and passes away is contingent.
~ The causal chain of contingent things cannot be an infinite regress (for reasons explained elsewhere).
~ Therefore there needs to be one non-contingent thing at the origin of the chain of contingent things.

Which part of this is special pleading?

I'll take door #2. It's a baseless claim. What qualifies you or any other person to say something six or eight or twelve billion years ago can or cannot have happened? It's a bald stipulation.

I'd also note that you've added two conditions to the Thomastic "logic", by stipulating "comes to be" and "passes", neither of which are in there ... looks like more goalpasting to me. How do you know that any prime mover is immortal? Looks like another suitcase job in play here.

How do you know your godling didn't "come to be", or will not "pass away"? You cannot know either. That too is special pleading. It's also trying to be sneaky, which I don't really appreciate as it smacks of dishonesty.

As a result of both premises being flawed, why should anyone be obligated to accept your conclusion?

Hope that helps ... but I'm skeptical. You're clearly hell-bent on believing in Heaven, for reasons of your own.

[Belacqua]

I'd also note that you've added two conditions to the Thomastic "logic", by stipulating "comes to be" and "passes", neither of which are in there ... looks like more goalpasting to me.

These are characteristics of contingent things. Something that isn't contingent hasn't come to be, by definition. I suppose that a contingent thing might come to be and then never pass away, but I have never heard of such a thing. Certainly it would pass away if its essential cause ceased to exist -- that's also a definition of contingent.

 How do you know that any prime mover is immortal? Looks like another suitcase job in play here.

I don't know that, and the argument doesn't address that. Of course Christians say that God is immortal, but that's not in the present argument.

How do you know your godling didn't "come to be", or will not "pass away"? You cannot know either. That too is special pleading. It's also trying to be sneaky, which I don't really appreciate as it smacks of dishonesty.

The gist of the argument is that contingent things can only exist because there is one non-contingent thing. Normally we say that things which come to be have been caused by something else, but if you have a way of describing how something can come to be without relying on the existence of a prior thing, then that would be interesting to know. 

As a result of both premises being flawed, why should anyone be obligated to accept your conclusion?

You haven't shown that the premises are flawed.

You did two things:

1) disagreed with my characterization of contingent things as being impermanent. And I concede that something which is caused by something else may in fact exist as long as the cause continues to exist as well. 

2) added the idea that the First Cause must be immortal. That's something you could argue against, but it's not part of the Argument from Contingency which this thread is about.

You're clearly hell-bent on believing in Heaven, for reasons of your own.

None of the Five Ways addresses the issue of heaven, and I have not said anything about it, nor about what I'm hell-bent on.

[The Grand Nudger]

Now there's a who in Bels what too.

[Thumpalumpacus]

These are characteristics of contingent things. Something that isn't contingent hasn't come to be, by definition.

If a non-contingent creator "hasn't come to be, by definition", then you are doubling down on special pleading. Explain why everything else needs a cause, but your creator doesn't.

The gist of the argument is that contingent things can only exist because there is one non-contingent thing.

You've just argued above that non-contingent beings haven't come to be and now 50 words later you're arguing again they they are required. Might you make up your mind?

Normally we say that things which come to be have been caused by something else, but if you have a way of describing how something can come to be without relying on the existence of a prior thing, then that would be interesting to know. 

You should check out some quantum mechanics. You might learn a little.

You misunderstand me.

I probably understand you more than you'd like. I know bullshit when I smell it. High-falutin' words don't put me off, and tossing them into a salad only makes me look for some dressing.

Now explain to me again how a non-contingent being doesn't exist at all, but is required for contingent beings. Take your time, I'm headed off to sleep so you've got a few hours to get your act together.

Weak shit. Weak.

[Deesse23]

~ Everything that comes to be and passes away is contingent.
~ The causal chain of contingent things cannot be an infinite regress (for reasons explained elsewhere).
~ Therefore there needs to be one non-contingent thing at the origin of the chain of contingent things.

Which part of this is special pleading?

I'll take door #2. It's a baseless claim. What qualifies you or any other person to say something six or eight or twelve billion years ago can or cannot have happened? It's a bald stipulation.

I'd also note that you've added two conditions to the Thomastic "logic", by stipulating "comes to be" and "passes", neither of which are in there ... looks like more goalpasting to me. How do you know that any prime mover is immortal? Looks like another suitcase job in play here.

How do you know your godling didn't "come to be", or will not "pass away"? You cannot know either. That too is special pleading. It's also trying to be sneaky, which I don't really appreciate as it smacks of dishonesty.

As a result of both premises being flawed, why should anyone be obligated to accept your conclusion?

Hope that helps ... but I'm skeptical. You're clearly hell-bent on believing in Heaven, for reasons of your own.

Everything within the universe may contingent. The universe itself may not. We.dont.know. Aquin didnt, and Bel doesnt. The end.

[Belacqua]

If a non-contingent creator "hasn't come to be, by definition", then you are actually arguing that Thomas was wrong ... just saying. This is how incoherent you're being.

No, it's a key part of Thomas's argument that anything which is non-contingent has not come to be. And this includes, of course, a First Cause. He thinks that the First Cause is the only non-contingent thing.

Do you think that Thomas argues that God came to be? The whole point is that he never came to be, he is the only non-contingent, uncreated thing.

You've just argued above that non-contingent beings haven't come to be and now 50 words later you're arguing again they they are required. Might you make up your mind?

"Contingent' means that they depend for their existence on something else. "Non-contingent" means that they don't. The non-contingent First Cause (which Thomas says is the only non-contingent thing) hasn't come to be. 

You should check out some quantum mechanics. You might learn a little.

Currently it appears that some quantum events occur without an efficient cause. As I explained earlier in the thread, the causes that Aristotle and Thomas talk about are not only efficient causes. 

To repeat: for them, the causes of X are all the things that must be the case in order for X to be the case. All quantum events depend for their occurrence on other things being the case -- for example, the existence of space/time. Therefore, in the sense of αἰτία, which is what Thomas is talking about, all quantum events are caused.

Now explain to me again how a non-contingent being doesn't exist at all, but is required for contingent beings.

Thomas argues that one non-contingent thing does exist, but hasn't come to be. It couldn't come to be, because there is nothing essentially prior which could cause it to come to be. 

"Come to be" is not the same as "exists." It means "begins to exist." Thomas thinks that God exists, but never came to be.

You added the idea that it has to last forever, which is of course a Christian belief, but isn't covered in the Argument from Contingency. 

As to why the non-contingent thing is necessary for contingent things to exist, that's what the thread is about, and it's been covered several times already.

[The Grand Nudger]

Never been covered at all. Not in this thread, or even on this earth. It's a free floating assertion.

There would have to be some non contingent thing to avoid infinite regress, but there's not now nor has there ever been any explanation for why there must be some non contingent thing for contingent things to exist. The entire universe may in fact be a bundle of multi-directional concomitant contingencies.

[The Architect Of Fate]

It's also a pure assertion that an infinite regress is impossible or even really a problem when discussing the universe. For all we know the universe is part of the regress.