The uses of the word contingency that @polymath257 described (a feature of logical deductions, an aspect of causality) are connotations. They all participate in a simple concept. The word contingent has sufficient definition when used properly to indicate dependence on something else. The opposite of contingent is necessary. That said, once a disagreement reaches the point of bickering over semantics, the discussion ceases to be interesting.
@emjay – I get your point. If the 5W are true then God has a minimum of five features. Thomas of Aquinas demonstrates that they are all features of one thing, which is where the Summa picks-up immediately after the 5W., whether or not God has parts, i.e. simplicity versus complexity. So when someone, not you, repeatedly suggests that the 5W just dangle out there unconnected to each other, it only shows that that person got their understanding of the 5W from skeptical YouTube videos and not from actually reading the Summa. Divine Simplicity, in Scholastic thought, is distinguished from complexity. God does not have parts. This does not exclude the possibility that God can be experienced in multiple ways and/or have infinite effects.
@Belecqua, thank you for the kind words. But I was being a little snarky and I must watch my tone. My bad online habits are coming back. It does not matter that I, as a believer, have chosen to participate oi forums where both disdain for religion and epistemic hubris feature prominently. When that culture rubs off and I contribute to it, then I have to own it.
@emjay – I get your point. If the 5W are true then God has a minimum of five features. Thomas of Aquinas demonstrates that they are all features of one thing, which is where the Summa picks-up immediately after the 5W., whether or not God has parts, i.e. simplicity versus complexity. So when someone, not you, repeatedly suggests that the 5W just dangle out there unconnected to each other, it only shows that that person got their understanding of the 5W from skeptical YouTube videos and not from actually reading the Summa. Divine Simplicity, in Scholastic thought, is distinguished from complexity. God does not have parts. This does not exclude the possibility that God can be experienced in multiple ways and/or have infinite effects.
@Belecqua, thank you for the kind words. But I was being a little snarky and I must watch my tone. My bad online habits are coming back. It does not matter that I, as a believer, have chosen to participate oi forums where both disdain for religion and epistemic hubris feature prominently. When that culture rubs off and I contribute to it, then I have to own it.
<insert profound quote here>
