What makes people irrational thinkers?

[LadyForCamus]

The elaborateness of an argument is not related to the truth of any of its premises, or its conclusion. Arguments can be elaborately fallacious. We’d have to examine these arguments in detail. 

A question which is likely to come up: do you know of any arguments as to why the physical universe is NOT contingent? It seems as though everything in it is contingent, but if you have a reason why the whole is not, that would offer a counter to Hart's claims.

I’ve already brought up a problem with the notion of physical reality being contingent (post #161), however it’s not relevant seeing as Hart is the one making the argument that it must be contingent. In order for his argument to be valid and sound he needs to be able demonstrate that it is impossible for the existence of physical reality to be necessary. It’s his premise. He owns the burden of proof.

By the way, assuming that because there is contingency within physical realty, physical realty itself must also be contingent is a fallacy of composition.