It is pretty complicated when the title says "simplified."
The article is about three separate things. First, it is about the concept of contingency, which is unclear. For example, some obviously contingent things are listed but what is not contingent? By listing some, it implies some are not. Is the universe contingent? Is anything in our universe not contingent?
It could quickly get into the fine-tuning argument and which characteristics of the physical universe are contingent and what is not.
Then, the arguments go into the possible cause of the contingency. So, are we talking about the universe here and its cause? We know that the universe is not infinite, so what could have caused our universe, another contingent event?
And these causes of our universe are not the result of an infinity of time and space. Why? That leads to "reductio ad absurdum." So, we are limited in what the cause could have been.
The article's third part is related to the first two but not essential. It assumes that the source of our contingency is a non-contingent entity. This makes sense. But then, the article goes into the characteristics of this entity.
So we have three ideas: 1) what is contingent? 2) what could be a source of the contingent phenomenon? Finally, what is the nature of the cause of these contingent phenomena? All related but all separate discussions.
Thanks for the comment. Your question about continency is interesting but irrelevant. The argument runs from contingency to necessity; it does not require determining whether everything in the universe is contingent to launch, only that some things are, which is obvious. (However, if you’re just asking for *my* opinion, then if by universe we just mean the collection of all finite or bounded concrete individuals, then I don’t think anything in the universe is non-contingent, and obviously if the universe is nothing above the collection of all bounded individuals, then I think the universe is itself contingent, as something that need not have been, but nevertheless not something to be taken as a substantial entity in its own right). From there, one, of course, must analysis what could possibly be that necessarily existing concrete entity that anchors the realm of contingency, and this is an argumentative step that I merely hinted at, but obviously required further development, which I engage substantially in my forthcoming book. Often in compressed articles like these, as I noted, certain details will have to be truncated or omitted and gestures made toward where further exploration can be had.
I'm trying to understand the difference between contingent and non contingent events. So far I am at best groping on the difference. Is everything in existence (this universe, all that is in it and anything else outside of it) contingent except the entity who is the initial cause of everything?
What relationship does Truth have with contingency? Does this question even make sense?
Does this entity called the creator or God, actually decide anything? Is anything automatic from His essence. Would this be non contingent if there were such things?
I will wait for the book before responding any more.
Aside: I started to formally try to learn just what philosophy is. I am going through three Teaching Company courses on philosophy and thinking to see what they offer. So far I am finding deficiencies in what each one says. Interesting is that one course discusses the concept "contingency" thoroughly, one does not mention the term and one only uses the term 3 times in 12 hours of lectures.
All good questions. First, I like to focus on contingent things over events, since contingent events (or happenings) are ultimately reducible to contingent things, the expression of their powers, and the interactions between them.
As I noted in the previous comment, I would hold that every concrete thing apart from God is contingent, insofar as it crucially requires God's casual activity for its existence. Most theists do take it that God freely decided to create the world. This attributes an aspect of contingency to God, but, importantly, not in a way that renders God metaphysically composite (i.e., that requires putting some intrinsic passive potency in God). In fact, an act of free choice is a nice way of making sense of how a contingent creation (something which need not have been) could have raised from a necessary foundation (something which must exist no matter what).
I have a few short comments about this article.
It is pretty complicated when the title says "simplified."
The article is about three separate things. First, it is about the concept of contingency, which is unclear. For example, some obviously contingent things are listed but what is not contingent? By listing some, it implies some are not. Is the universe contingent? Is anything in our universe not contingent?
It could quickly get into the fine-tuning argument and which characteristics of the physical universe are contingent and what is not.
Then, the arguments go into the possible cause of the contingency. So, are we talking about the universe here and its cause? We know that the universe is not infinite, so what could have caused our universe, another contingent event?
And these causes of our universe are not the result of an infinity of time and space. Why? That leads to "reductio ad absurdum." So, we are limited in what the cause could have been.
The article's third part is related to the first two but not essential. It assumes that the source of our contingency is a non-contingent entity. This makes sense. But then, the article goes into the characteristics of this entity.
So we have three ideas: 1) what is contingent? 2) what could be a source of the contingent phenomenon? Finally, what is the nature of the cause of these contingent phenomena? All related but all separate discussions.
Hi Jerry,
Thanks for the comment. Your question about continency is interesting but irrelevant. The argument runs from contingency to necessity; it does not require determining whether everything in the universe is contingent to launch, only that some things are, which is obvious. (However, if you’re just asking for *my* opinion, then if by universe we just mean the collection of all finite or bounded concrete individuals, then I don’t think anything in the universe is non-contingent, and obviously if the universe is nothing above the collection of all bounded individuals, then I think the universe is itself contingent, as something that need not have been, but nevertheless not something to be taken as a substantial entity in its own right). From there, one, of course, must analysis what could possibly be that necessarily existing concrete entity that anchors the realm of contingency, and this is an argumentative step that I merely hinted at, but obviously required further development, which I engage substantially in my forthcoming book. Often in compressed articles like these, as I noted, certain details will have to be truncated or omitted and gestures made toward where further exploration can be had.
Cheers,
- Pat
Patrick, thanks for the answer.
I'm trying to understand the difference between contingent and non contingent events. So far I am at best groping on the difference. Is everything in existence (this universe, all that is in it and anything else outside of it) contingent except the entity who is the initial cause of everything?
What relationship does Truth have with contingency? Does this question even make sense?
Does this entity called the creator or God, actually decide anything? Is anything automatic from His essence. Would this be non contingent if there were such things?
I will wait for the book before responding any more.
Aside: I started to formally try to learn just what philosophy is. I am going through three Teaching Company courses on philosophy and thinking to see what they offer. So far I am finding deficiencies in what each one says. Interesting is that one course discusses the concept "contingency" thoroughly, one does not mention the term and one only uses the term 3 times in 12 hours of lectures.
Hi Jerry,
All good questions. First, I like to focus on contingent things over events, since contingent events (or happenings) are ultimately reducible to contingent things, the expression of their powers, and the interactions between them.
As I noted in the previous comment, I would hold that every concrete thing apart from God is contingent, insofar as it crucially requires God's casual activity for its existence. Most theists do take it that God freely decided to create the world. This attributes an aspect of contingency to God, but, importantly, not in a way that renders God metaphysically composite (i.e., that requires putting some intrinsic passive potency in God). In fact, an act of free choice is a nice way of making sense of how a contingent creation (something which need not have been) could have raised from a necessary foundation (something which must exist no matter what).