(February 12, 2018 at 12:40 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:(February 11, 2018 at 11:05 pm)SteveII Wrote: I agree. I was made to realize my mistake and I altered my example of a possible world that only consisted of an immaterial mind (something god-like) or some other medium of existence to illustrate that it is logically possible that our universe could have failed to exist.
Forgive me if I've misunderstood, but from my perusal of this thread I was under the impression that you were using the premise that the universe is contingent in service to your natural theology arguments. Since the aim of those arguments is to derive the conclusion that God exists, your use of the idea of something god-like, which is by your definition a necessary being, to derive the result that the universe is contingent, is improper. Doing so would be to invoke the existence of God, to derive the contingency of the universe, to then use that result to derive the conclusion that God exists. That would be a clear case of begging the question.
I don't know what you mean by "some other medium of existence" here, but regardless, I'd appreciate it if you'd clarify what greater argument you are using the result of the universe's contingency in service toward. (I'm not sure what you're working toward by invoking additional contingent entities such as an 'other' medium of existence and would appreciate you clarifying exactly what the relationship to the current question is. In regard to your comments about infinite regresses and occam's razor, I will simply caution you that if such objections are in the service of supporting natural theology arguments of the usual sort, I consider such objections problematic for reasons we will get into if the conversation turns in that direction.)
The hurdle in the discussion was proving that the cosmos is a contingent entity. There were several who thought it was not contingent.
I tried to show this using the conception of a possible world that had 'nothing' in it. That brings up other problems about what 'nothing' is. I realized my mistake and changed my point to say there is a possible world where there is something else besides our cosmos. This possible world could consist of just God (or something akin to God), perhaps just minds, perhaps some other substance (I used the word medium) that contained other entities. It really doesn't matter what the example is because the the point I was trying to prove is the very conservative claim: our cosmos is contingent.
The conversation really had not gotten to any objections about God being the first cause yet because of near constant pressing the issue on whether the cosmos was a necessary entity or not. Are you willing to grant that the cosmos seems to be a contingent entity?